As a member of the National Rifle Association, I regularly receive its magazine, The American Rifleman. In the December 2015 issue appears an editorial by Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President, entitled “Obama, Hillary Embrace Gun Confiscation”. Although this observation of present political facts should hardly surprise anyone, it rightly vexes Mr. LaPierre, because of the dark history of “gun control” in Britain and especially in Australia—where confiscation went forward (according to him) “[t]o assuage an insane notion of collective guilt to impose a national gun ban”, and “will never end until the last firearm is removed from private hands”.

Now, most astute observers understand that, although the systematic disarming of Britons and Australians by their own rogue public officials over the years “will never end until the last firearm is removed from private hands”, it never has had anything, and today has nothing, to do with psychobabble about “collective guilt”, or even some “insane notion”, but instead was and is the product of a coldly calculated policy contrived by political elitists who were, and remain, intent upon creating in those benighted nations the conditions necessary for the imposition and perpetuation of police states.

These events have been, in no small measure, “models” or “test beds” for the same tactics to be employed against the United States, for the same ultimate purpose. So I wonder whether Mr. LaPierre really imagines that, as leading political elitists in this country, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton espouse confiscation of Americans’ firearms simply because they supposedly suffer from “collective guilt”, or are the victims of “insane notion[s]”.

After all, America’s rogue public officials have generally proven themselves to be ruthless political racketeers whose every exercise of real or imaginary power demonstrates that a police state in this country appeals to them far more than what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”. Arguably, these miscreants might be found guilty of numerous crimes, or perhaps even be diagnosed as “insane” in some sense—all too many political figures in high offices in the Western World today being at least subject to suspicion as narcissistic psychopaths. Yet there is method in what might be deemed their madness with respect to “gun control”. And it is their method which must be opposed, whether they are cunning criminals who deserve condign punishment, or merely pitiable wretches who suffer from some mental disease or defect.

Which brings me to my dissatisfaction with Mr. LaPierre’s editorial. He frets that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton “would alter the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court with the goal of overturning the landmark decisions that have recognized the sanctity of the Second Amendment in guaranteeing our right to keep and bear arms.” (Here, he refers to the Court’s recent Heller and MacDonald decisions.) But if those decisions had ruled against the construction of the Second Amendment which Mr. LaPierre favors (as, by merely one vote among the Justices, they almost did), would he now be so enthusiastic about preserving them? Or would he, precisely in the fashion of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton (and many others of their political coloration), be in favor of “alter[ing] the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court with the goal of overturning th[os]e * * * decisions”? The answer to that question is obvious.

Unfortunately, Mr. LaPierre seems to embrace the fallacy known as “judicial supremacy”: the notion that the Constitution means whatever some decision of the Supreme Court says that it means. In practice, this reduces to the perverse conclusion that the Constitution must be taken to mean whatever the fifth fool who creates a majority among the Justices happens to believe at the time, no matter how obviously wrong that belief may be. So America is controlled by “a government of men”, all too fallible and corruptible, not “a government of laws” the meanings of which are capable of objective determination.

The truth is, however, that a decision of the Supreme Court does not determine whether the Constitution means this or that. Rather, the Constitution determines whether a decision of the Supreme Court in favor of this or that is correct or incorrect. We know that this must be the true rule of constitutional construction, because—by their own admissions in cases such as Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828-830 & note 1 (1991)—the Justices have been wrong about the Constitution in the past, time and again, and therefore can and surely will be wrong in the future. Today they may hand down decisions such as Heller and MacDonald, which equivocally limit certain aspects of “gun control”; and tomorrow they may concoct some hideous decisions reversing Heller and MacDonald in favor of “gun control”. So as an institution the Court is a weak reed on which to lean if the goal is to enforce the Constitution, as opposed to some Justices’ idiosyncratic—perhaps idiotic—musings about the Constitution.

To his credit, Mr. LaPierre does realize that “judicial supremacy” poses a practical political problem: namely, who are the Justices to be? The Supreme Court is not a permanent group of wise men and women who unerringly issue opinions in perfect conformity with the Constitution as Mr. LaPierre understands (or perhaps misunderstands) it. The Court’s composition changes over time. So the only way to ensure that his interpretation of the Second Amendment prevails is continually to “pack” the Court with new Justices in sympathy with that interpretation. But to “pack” the Court requires control of the White House and the Senate, the joint efforts of which determine the Court’s composition. So Mr. LaPierre calls upon the NRA’s members to “organize as never before and stand united in voting to save the Second Amendment in November 2016”.

The problem is that America cannot rely on elected politicians to enforce the Constitution (even if the elections are actually honest). After all, since the 1930s who has enacted the various “gun-control” statutes which Mr. LaPierre hopes the Supreme Court will eventually strike down as “infringe[ments]” of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, if not Members of Congress in league with various Presidents? If these people could have been, or their successors could now be, trusted to defend what Mr. LaPierre calls “the sanctity of the Second Amendment”, why would anyone be concerned with the present or the future composition of the Supreme Court? There would be no issues of “gun control” to come before the Court. And if these people cannot be trusted with the defense of the Second Amendment today or tomorrow—just as History proves that their predecessors could not be trusted in yesteryears—then how can they be trusted to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will defend that Amendment any more rigorously than they themselves have failed to defend it?

The undeniable political fact is that Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court are unstable and untrustworthy institutions which need to be closely supervised and controlled at all times, especially between elections. The very existence of the Constitution—replete with “checks and balances” as it is—proves as much. Moreover, the existence of the Second Amendment—or any other provision of the Constitution—by itself guarantees nothing.

The Constitution is not self-interpreting and self-executing. Its “checks and balances” must be understood, and then put into operation—religiously, rigorously, even ruthlessly. And for that purpose WE THE PEOPLE cannot rely solely upon their ostensible “representatives” in any branch of government. For those “representatives”—whether through ignorance, indolence, insouciance, self-interest, or criminal inclinations—may turn out to be the sources of the problem. To defend the Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE must depend upon themselves. They are the authors of the Constitution. As its authors, they are its final interpreters. And to ensure that their interpretations are taken seriously by public officials, they must be its ultimate enforcers. But how are WE THE PEOPLE to accomplish this task?

To answer this question requires no more than to read the Constitution. The only stable and trustworthy establishments the Constitution incorporates within its federal system are “the Militia of the several States”. They are stable and trustworthy because they are always composed of the sovereigns themselves, WE THE PEOPLE, not merely some ever-mutating gaggle of possibly incompetent or disloyal “representatives”. If THE PEOPLE themselves cannot be trusted to exercise their own sovereignty in their own interest, who can be? Certainly no one else in what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”—that is, a polity based upon popular self-government. In the final analysis, in “a free State” THE PEOPLE can depend upon no one other than themselves to maintain their freedom.

That is why the Second Amendment itself declares that “well regulated Militia” are “necessary to the security of a free State”. Not the Supreme Court—not Congress—not the President—not the NRA and all of its efforts in lobbying, litigation, electioneering, and public education—not isolated individuals trying to exercise the so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms”—not even those private groups which ignorantly style themselves “militia”. No, not any one of these alone, or any combination of a few of them, or even all of them together, but instead “well regulated Militia” defined (as Virginia’s Declaration of Rights so accurately defined them in 1776) as “composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”. Not just some of “the people”—but “the body of the people”—“trained to arms” so as to secure the Power of the Sword in the hands of the sovereigns themselves.

If in the last several decades the NRA, and Americans in general, had payed due attention to all twenty-seven words in the Second Amendment—and particularly the first thirteen, not just the last fourteen on which the NRA dotes—patriots would not have to worry about the legalistic clap-trap some majority of Justices of the Supreme Court might spew out in favor of “gun control”. For there would be no “gun control” as we know it today. If the Militia existed as the Constitution requires that they exist, Mr. LaPierre would have no occasion to rail against such “gun-control” fanatics as one Fred Hiatt, of The Washington Post, whom Mr. LaPierre quotes as calling for a “cultural shift” which will lead to “[a] gun-free society’”. Of course, Mr. Hiatt does not actually propose “[a] gun-free society” in the fullest sense of those words. No, indeed. In the society he advocates, regular armed forces and para-militarized police departments and other “law-enforcement agencies”—all of them equivalent to large or small “standing armies”—would have guns, and plenty of them.

And out of the barrels of those guns these “standing armies” would impose, under the guise of “martial law” or other “emergency powers”, the policies that Mr. Hiatt and his co-thinkers want to see directed against common Americans—Americans who, because they were thoroughly disarmed, would be unable to mount any defense against those policies, not matter how tyrannical they might be. To be sure, Mr. Hiatt himself may be simply another muddled “liberal”, incapable of coherent thinking along constitutional lines, rather than a self-conscious totalitarian. But the “gun-free society” he advocates would, of necessity, be nothing less than the opposite of what the Second Amendment calls “a free State”: namely, “a[n un]free State”. (Perhaps for him, too, as well as for the vast majority of his countrymen.)

Mr. LaPierre no doubt understands, and rightly fears, this outcome. But, in opposing it, he fails to bring to bear against it the full armamentarium the Constitution provides. The last fourteen words of the Second Amendment are not enough. The first thirteen are, as they themselves attest, “necessary”. WE THE PEOPLE must exercise “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms”, without “infringe[ment]”, through “well regulated Militia”—and not just to resist “martial law”, “emergency powers”, and other manifestations of usurpation and tyranny; but also to do everything else that “well regulated Militia” could do, and would do, and must do today that would have nothing to do with resisting usurpation and tyranny, but everything to do with providing “the security of a free State” from other, perhaps more immediate, dangers.

I have written extensively about this subject in many of my columns for NewsWithViews, and in books such as The Sword and Sovereignty, Thirteen Words, Three Rights, and By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”. Yet tireless repetition of this message appears to be obligatory upon me in particular, as vanishingly few people seem to be paying any attention—not so much to me, but to the Constitution. As an NRA firearms instructor, I am well aware from my training that no amount of repetition of the NRA’s three basic rules of firearms safety—to wit, “always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction”, “always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot”, and “always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use it”—can ever be excessive. How much more so for the most important teaching of the Constitution: to wit, that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”? Can any number of reiterations of this precept be too many? More importantly, can its implementation be left in abeyance?

The question I put to Mr. LaPierre, to the NRA in general, and to all of the rest of the self-styled advocates of the Second Amendment is: “When do you intend to take this admonition seriously?” When it is too late?No one can doubt that the herd of “gun-control” fanatics stampeding throughout this country today poses a clear and present danger to “a free State”. But no less—and perhaps more—dangerous are the supposed champions of the Second Amendment for whom only its last fourteen words have any significance. The “gun-control” fanatics at least understand what is at stake. Their constant attacks on so-called “assault” firearms, “high-capacity” magazines, and the most effective types of ammunition prove that they want to make revitalization of the Militia impossible, under any circumstances, by denying Americans the ability to possess the very equipment which is peculiarly apt for Militia service.

The counter-arguments from defenders of the Second Amendment that this equipment may be useful for individuals’ self-defense against common criminals, or even against real domestic “terrorists”, although true in principle is largely beside the point in practice. For this equipment is not uniquely useful for those purposes, and in many instances would not be useful at all (as most individuals are unlikely to be out and about in society on a daily basis with AR-15 rifles slung on their shoulders.)

The real constitutional argument against contemporary “gun control” lies in the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment. Namely, that every American eligible for the Militia—which includes every able-bodied adult man and woman (other than conscientious objectors)—has a right, and more importantly a duty, to possess whatever firearms can serve any purpose in the Militia, under any circumstances in which the Militia might be called forth. Constitutional “gun control” requires the possession of firearms of every description by every American eligible for the Militia. (Not that every American would necessarily possess every type of firearm; but that no American would be denied a right to possess any type of firearm.) Every self-styled advocate of the Second Amendment who denies this, or who simply evades the matter entirely, turns other Americans away from the constitutional solution to “gun control”, and thereby actually aid and abets the proponents of “gun control”. It may be that these people are motivated by good, if misguided, intentions. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, all of them misguided. And this country is too far down that road already to tolerate further misdirection.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms… He can be reached at his new address:52 Stonegate CourtFront Royal, VA 22630. E-Mail: Not available

and nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues

Copyright Sunday, December 20, 2015 – All Rights Reserved

Conflict and unrest in America is hardly a new phenomenon. Put two human beings in a room and you have conflict and unrest due to competing interests, desires and wants. From the day the ink was dry on the Constitution and well before, conflicts, unrest and turmoil were raging. Even during the drafting of the Constitution, serious disagreement was in evidence.

In one of the first un-constitutional moves by a president, John Adams signed into law the Aliens and Sedition Act in 1798 in an attempt to suppress voters who voted in opposition to the Federalist Party. From the war of 1812, to the banking crisis under Andrew Jackson, to the Civil War, to the passing of the 16th Amendment and beyond, America has been and will continue to be in a state of crisis. That is the human condition. If it isn’t war, it is social unrest, racial tensions, labor disputes, or warring special interests looking to government to arbitrate their disputes.

For every era of unrest or crisis in the history of America, individuals have risen to meet the challenges of the times. Sometimes those individuals aided in the resolution of the crisis and sometimes they exacerbated the crisis, as Obama has done during his presidency.

Each individual that rises to the fore to become a leader of a small group, corporation, union, or even a country, comes with a wide possibility of character types, personas and experience. Political leaders tend to derive from those individuals already in political positions of power, such as previous presidents, governors, mayors, senators and congressmen and women. But on very rare occasions leaders will pop up out of nowhere from non-political pursuits.

One of the sad weaknesses of man is his desire to find and elect a leader that will lead that person personally out of a negative condition, or save him or her from a disaster. As America grew in population, the number of people within the population who possessed that weakness has grown, almost exponentially, aided and abetted by a government all too willing to provide the salvation, but at a price. The price was the person’s vote. The salvation came, unconstitutionally, out of the public treasury.

America now has more people looking for a leader (savior) to save them personally from the ravages of nature or man-made disasters (such as government tyranny, foreign threats, economic collapse, income in-equality, climate change, or the one-world-order) than ever before.

America was originally founded on the hardy, self-reliant, strong individual looking to themselves to solve their own problems because there was no government assistance available, as there shouldn’t have been. Since the time of FDR and thanks to FDR, people now look to government or government leaders to solve their personal problems. That includes individuals from both sides of the political spectrum expecting that the next president, senator, or congressman would listen to their plight and hand them a silver dollar, or go get the bad guys with a vengeance.

For many decades the American people have become more and more isolated from government and the government executive, legislative and judicial system, at every level. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” has become abusive, tyrannical and corrupt. The “Consent of the Governed” has become virtually meaningless. The “System” is in control, not the people. (See: “The System _ Impenetrable, Inflexible and Un-Yielding”)

The people see the isolation and separation happening but don’t know how to fix it. Since the people are divided them selves and won’t come together in unity to fix the real problems, they look to their leaders to solve those problems even though those very same leaders are the leaders from which they feel isolated and whom they believe are hopelessly corrupt.

Along comes Trump. No matter what the reader thinks of Trump, positive or negative, he is colorful, brash, bold, forceful, larger than life and hugely financially successful. Yes, he repeats himself constantly, but Trump is his own man and he doesn’t care what other people think or say. He appears not to be one of those dreaded corrupt establishment politicians and he owes his soul to no one, so he says. He says things that resonate with those who feel isolated from government and want to see government returned to the true vision of the Founding Fathers, whatever their perception is of that vision. Who can blame them for seeing a “savior” in Trump?

To those individuals that resonate with his words, they don’t care that what Trump says may be impossible to implement. It just sounds good because of their anger and frustration at both parties who, from all appearances, collude with each other against American citizens.

But Trump is an enigma. He doesn’t fit the mold of the usual politician, much less the average American. The people like that. But Trump has a huge ego, nor would he be seeking the presidency if he didn’t have one. Is he a narcissist? There is no a doubt.

His ego and narcissism become manifest in a recent article written by Michael D’Antonio that appeared in the Los Angeles Times and re-printed in the Seattle Times entitled, “Understanding Donald Trump.” D’Antonio personally interviewed Trump for several hours.

Trump told D’Antonio in the interview that “I’m a big believer in natural ability. I’m convinced it is DNA, (blood line) not life’s experiences, that makes a successful man.” Trump’s second wife, Marla Maples, called Trump a king. She is reported to have said, “He’s a King. I mean truly. He is. He is a king. He really is ruler of the world, as he sees it.” (Ruler of the World? Really?)

In the article D’Antonio tells us that Trump’s mother was so enamored with royalty she spent hours watching the TV broadcast of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation. Trump’s father raised the young Donald to become “a killer” and told Donald he was a King. Donald Trump truly believes he is royalty and entitled to king status. Trump’s sense of entitlement and royalty has been with him throughout his entire life, fostered, pampered and promoted by his parents. He even tried to date Princess Di (royalty) after her divorce but was rebuffed. We believe he was in between wives at the time.

His choice of women throughout his life has been to pick a mate with exceptional qualities in status, good looks and physical prowess, mostly from European stock. When he finally picked a mate and married her, he immediately started looking for another mate and his divorces came from his reckless infidelity. This is just another window into Trump’s soul and personality.

Nevertheless, whether king in his own mind or just a very successful business man, Trump is a man of his times, rising to meet the apparent challenges of the times in which he lives. It remains to be seen whether he is just power hungry or truly believes he can make a difference in America for purely altruistic reasons.

Perhaps in these troubled times of domestic and foreign crises, maybe America needs a king-like persona to solve the problems of these times. That is of course if he can convince a majority of the electorate in the general election that they want a king to preside over America at this time. After insulting half the population of the United States in one form or another with his seemingly un-controlled outbursts, his election to the presidency is in serious question. When the votes start trickling in from the early 2016 state primaries we will soon learn whether Trump can go the distance.

The fact is, Trump is a symptom of his time, not a king, much less a God. He is a mortal man subject to all the frailties and flaws of mortal man. If anyone with normal intellect has observed Trump for any length of time, his frailties and flaws are readily apparent. The question is, do these troubled times in America require a king to solve all the domestic and foreign problems we all face and will his king-like flaws get in the way of accomplishing what he seems to want for America? Remember. He is up against an “impenetrable, inflexible and un-yielding system” that won’t break easy, even under the strong personality of a Donald Trump!

But remember ladies and gentlemen. We have already tried a king in America. FDR acted like a king and FDR did more to change the character and the people of America from self-reliance, to socialist dependency than any other president before him. Will Trump’s king-like persona return America to self-reliance and the principles of liberty, or just make Americans more dependent on government? Or, is the whole subject of a Trump presidency moot because there is no way he can win the general election? We will know soon enough.

To learn more about Donald Trump and the information we have assembled about him, his past and his run for the presidency, log onto our TRUMP website at http://www.trumperman.com.

If you are a rural landowner, don’t forget to check out our rural landowner website at http://www.narlo.org/. We are celebrating our 10th year as national advocates for the American rural landowner.

This will be our last weekly column for 2015. We will commence our column in early 2016. We wish all of our readers a very Merry Christmas and a New Year that will begin to show signs of once again returning America to truly be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Because a free America, under strong, dedicated and honorable leaders, is the only hope that Americans and the rest of the world have, if the world is ever to rise above national and international war, conflict, unrest, barbarism and turmoil.

Be well, stay safe, learn all you can about where America is today and above all, be armed with knowledge and adequate personal protection. The wise man or woman always prepares for every possible contingency, even if that contingency is war.

There is no greater danger to America than a manic authoritarian in the office of president, and OBUMA should have made that plain to every American by now. If Trump is given that office, he, being much smarter than OBUMA will lay total control over our lives’ like OBUMA only dreamed about. He does not have to take our weapons away, or our freedom to travel, or sign every trade agreement that comes along to make us wish for an early death. All he has to do is follow the banker’s orders at this point, and our lives and dreams will be as miserable as it gets. If anyone reading this thinks there is any chance of a President reversing the present decline of freedom in America, I pity you for being so ignorant. Freedom is dead! There is not enough unity between Americans to decide which way is up. We are only an inch away from wanting a civil war because we all hate each other and that is all it took to destroy the elusion we have all held on to. America has never been what we were taught as children, and still most of us cling to it like it’s free money. Trump will create an exodus out of America that will make the immigration pandemic look like a joke. Have you folks totally forgotten who owns everything,,,,? including trump! If you have even a modicum of hope for America, you are living in a dream world!

As a result of the manipulated Bankruptcy of the United States in ’33 – exposed by Rep Lewis McFadden and others in the Congressional Record – that precipitated President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confiscation of the people’s gold and implementation of The New Deal – the following change in the “Law of the Land” occurred.

Excerpts from attorney Melvin Stamper’s book, Fruit from a Poisonous Tree. Comments by AntCorruptionSociety are in brackets.[REGISTRATION]Page 59

Massive registration of property through United States agencies, including the States of the Union as instrumentalities of the federal government in bankruptcy, assured the United States and its officers and instrumentalities (the states) that they would become wealthy beyond their wildest expectations, as predicted by Colonel House. Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President, 1913-1921). From the private papers of Woodrow Wilson:

“Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.[This is done when mothers fill out and submit a “Certificate of Live Birth”.]By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.[This is why we “register” for a Social Security Number.]

They will be our Chattel and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading [Certificate of Live Birth] to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. [Presumed consent] They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.

This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor or to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.” [The UNITED STATES is a for-profit corporation.][PRESUMPTION]

In the 1950s, the Uniform Commercial Code was adopted in most of the States as a means of unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial fictions as though they were real. Security instruments replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive adhesion contracts. Debt instruments with collateral and accommodating parties could be used instead of money. Money and the need for money was disappearing, and a uniform system of law had to be put in place to allow the courts to uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance. All this was accomplished by the mid-1960s.

The commercial code is merely a codification of accepted and required procedures which all people engaged in commercial activity must follow. The basic principles of commerce had been settled thousands of years ago, but were refined as commerce become more sophisticated over the years. In the 1900s, the age-old principles of commerce shifted from substance to form. Presumption became a major element of the law. Without giving a degree of force to legal presumption, the new direction in enforcing commercial claims could not be supported in Equity/Admiralty courts and had no chance in common law. If the claimants were required to produce their claims every time they tried to collect from the people, they would seldom be successful.

The principles articulated in the commercial code combine the methods of dealing with substantive commercial activity with presumptive commercial activity. These principles work as well for us as they do for the entrenched powers. The rules are neutral and respect neither side of a dispute, as they are ancient in origin.

The entrenched powers that engineered the scheme for the people to register their property and person with the United States and its instrumentalities gained control of the peoples’ property and right to property through registration and licensing. The United States became the trustee of the titles to everything. The definition of “property” is the interest one has in a thing. The thing is the principal. The property is the interest in the thing. Profits (interest) made from the property of another belong to the owner of the thing.

The International Bankers made profits by pledging as surety the registered property of the people in commercial markets, but the profits do not belong to the Bankers. The profits belong to the owners of the thing. That is always the people. The corporation government shows only ownership of paper – titles to things. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. Sometimes the fiction is manufactured to appear as substance, but fiction can never become substance; it is an illusion. This is why the proper spelling of your name in upper and lower case is never used in court documents.

The ALL CAPS spelling represents the legal fiction, which the government holds title to and jurisdiction over, as it is the creation of the government. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. What will happen when you appear and claim the name ascribed on the complaint? You and the fiction become one and the same; you have changed masks from a natural person to an artificial one.

The profits from all the registered property had to be put into trust for the benefit of the owners. If the profits were put into the general fund of the United States and not into separate trusts for the owners, the scheme would evidence fraud. The profits for each owner could not be co-mingled.[CONSENT]

[The banksters cannot access our trust without our signatures as the beneficiaries, so they trick us into consenting by getting us to sign their documents.]If the owner failed to use his available remedy (fictional credits held in a constructive trust account, fund, or financial ledger) to benefit from the profits, it would not be the fault of the government or their banking co-conspirators. If the owner failed to learn the law that would open the door to his remedy, it would not be the fault of the swindlers. The owner is responsible for learning the law so he understands that the profits from his property are available for him to discharge debts or charges brought against his legal fiction person by the United States or other commercial entities.

References:

Fruit From a Poisonous Tree, Chapter Two, by Melvin Stamper, JD; AmazonThe Bankruptcy of 1933 by Judge Dale, retiredCongressional Record (June 1932)Congressional Record (March 1933)Congressional Record (March 1993)Our Government is Just Another CorporationThe UCC and YouCorporations Cannot be Sovereign GovernmentsStrategies for ‘denying consent’ can be found in the LAWFULLY YOURS guide – available as a free download.

OLDDOGS COMMENTSShamefully, most readers will not recognize that this article is far and away the most powerful sermon since Jesus walked the earth. If the majority of Christians were as theologically astute as Chuck, the world would be a far better place than it ever has been. The real essence of Christianity has never been elucidated as clearly as what you are about to read.

Adult choirs, children’s programs, teen choirs, orchestras, bands, Sunday School lessons, pageants, and sermons will all laud the birth of the Prince of Peace. They will hear messages about love and peace and brotherhood. They will raise their hands in “worship,” smile and laugh, shout “Amen,” and get warm and fuzzy feelings all over as they celebrate the day that the Prince of Peace was born.

No doubt, pastors all over America will quote Luke 2:13, 14. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”But as soon as the Christmas celebration passes, their vocalizations of peace and goodwill will be buried amidst a cacophony of hatred for their fellow man: specifically, for their fellowmen who call themselves Muslims. We might hear “Kill the infidels!” from the mouths of certain Islamic jihadists, but that same cry is heard by God from the hearts of, perhaps, millions of America’s Christians.

Currently, Donald Trump is riding a wave of bigotry and hatred against the Muslim people to a potential Republican nomination for President. I have no idea whether Trump hates Muslims or not, but there is no doubt that millions of Christians and “conservatives” have been whipped into a frenzy of anti-Muslim hatred by FOX News, pastors, and thousands of conservative Internet bloggers, writers, journalists, and radio talk show hosts. Trump’s anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric has harnessed that hatred into frontrunner status in the GOP presidential race. And Ted Cruz has done the same thing, which has vaulted him to the current runner-up position.

In the following video, we see Cruz walking out on a group of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians where he had been invited to speak. This meeting was all about showing solidarity for persecuted Christians. There is no way Cruz could not have understood the group he was speaking to. The meeting was not a political event. It was simply an event to demonstrate support for persecuted Christians–regardless of who was doing the persecuting.

But it didn’t take Ted Cruz long to turn his speech into a political stunt. He quickly became an apologist for Israel, which brought boos from the audience. What most of America’s Christians do not understand is that the government of Israel has committed more than its fair share of persecution against Christians. When Cruz heard the boos, he accused members of his audience of being consumed with hate and then said, “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you,” and stormed off the stage.

Really, Ted? These were Christians who are being persecuted by Muslims and Jews. They were looking to a fellow Christian to encourage their hearts. Instead, you brazenly took the side of their persecutors.Mr. Cruz, are you standing with Israel when it stoned Stephen to death in Acts 7? Are you standing with Israel when it beheaded James in Acts 12? Are you standing with Israel when it crucified the Lord Jesus Christ? If you would stand with Israel when it persecutes Christians today, then I guess you are.

Every day, my email inbox fills up with anti-Muslim hatred–and much of it from professing Christians. These are the same ones that will celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace next week.As justification for their bigotry and hatred, Christians love to quote passages from the Koran that speak of jihad against “infidels.” But, it never ceases to amaze me that these same Christians seem to have never read the Jewish Talmud–or even the writings of many Christian leaders from years gone by.

For example, here are some excerpts from the Talmud:

“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” (BT Bava Metzia 59b)“All gentile women without exception are: ‘Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah’ (menstrual filth, slaves, heathens and prostitutes).” (BT Sanhedrin 81b – 82a)

“The best of the gentiles: kill him; the best of snakes: smash its skull; the best of women: is filled with witchcraft.” (BT Kiddushin 66c)

“Regarding bloodshed the following distinction applies: If a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew, he is exempt from punishment.” (BT Sanhedrin 57a)“Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a gentile.” (BT Baba Kamma 113a)

“On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days and proclaimed, Jesus of Nazareth is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows of an argument that may be proposed in his favor should come and present that argument on his behalf. But the judges did not find an argument in his favor, so they hanged him on Passover Eve…Did Jesus of Nazareth deserve that a search be made for an argument in his favor? Surely he incited others to idol worship.” (BT Sanhedrin 43a)

Celebrated ancient religion historian Peter Schafer, who is now the director of the Jewish Museum of Berlin, wrote this commentary on the Babylonian Talmud (BT) Grittin 57a, “…Jesus shares his place in the Netherworld (hell) with Titus and Balaam, the notorious arch enemies of the Jewish people. Whereas Titus is punished for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes, reassembled, and burned over and over again, and whereas Balaam is castigated by sitting in hot semen, Jesus’ fate consists of sitting forever in boiling excrement.” (Peter Schäfer, “Jesus in the Talmud,” Princeton University Press, p. 13)

Amazingly, I don’t hear Christians screaming the accusation that “there is no such thing as a peaceful Jew,” based on the writings of the Talmud and its apologists. Yet, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently promised that Talmudic law is the official law of Israel.

Make no mistake about it: the Talmud, NOT the Torah, is the Bible of the Zionists. The “Oral Law” of the Pharisees who crucified Christ formed the basis for the Talmud. This was exactly what Jesus was referring to when he scolded the Pharisees for placing their “traditions” ahead of the Law of Moses (the Torah). I propose that the Talmud is FAR WORSE than the Koran; and I believe I can prove it.

The Pharisees hated the Lord Jesus then, and their spiritual descendants, the Zionists, still hate Him today. Yet, there is not a peep from the Christian community at large about the threat posed to Christian America from Zionists.But in reality, Zionists have done more to expunge America’s Christian heritage than perhaps any other single force. Islamic jihadists don’t even come close. For the most part, Zionists control America’s television news networks, America’s major newspapers, the Federal Reserve and most of America’s major banking interests–as well as America’s entertainment and educational institutions–and even our legal institutions. An argument can also be made that the extraordinary wealth of the Zionists has exerted a significant influence over America’s political institutions.

Yet, there is nary a peep from today’s Christians regarding the attack against America’s Christian heritage from Zionists. Neither is there any mention of Israel’s attack against the U.S.S. Liberty, which took the lives of dozens of American sailors and Marines. It’s as if it never happened. Imagine if that attack had come from a Muslim country. I invite you to watch this video (caution, bad language is used) of an atheist Jew (yes, a sizeable percentage of Jews are atheists) who goes berserk with rage against a Christian man on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. Had this man been a Muslim, this video would have gone viral as “proof” of how all Muslims hate Christians. But since the man is a Jew, you are probably seeing this video for the first time:

Does this young Jewish man represent all Jews? Of course not. No more than Islamist militants represent all Muslims. In addition, Christians should do some careful research regarding what some of their own institutions have done and what some of their own renowned leaders have said. What follows is a summary of one Christian researcher, with my comments in brackets:

For over 300 years during the Dark Ages, between 10,000-100,000 [some say 1 million, but that is probably an exaggeration] people were savagely tortured and killed–and thousands more persecuted–by the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Catholic Church is not alone.

The Lutheran towns of Lubeck, Bremen, Hamburg, Luneburg, Stralsund, Rostock and Wismar all voted to hang Anabaptists and flog and banish Catholics and Zwinglians from their homelands.Martin Luther said of Roman Catholic leaders, “If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it . . . To the fire with them!”

Luther taught that dissenters (those who disagreed with him) should be banished and said that “The peasants (involved in the Peasants’ War) would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything; their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. … On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy, but let everyone, as he is able, hew, stab, slay, lay about him as though among mad dogs, . . . . so that peace and safety may be maintained….” Note that he was speaking of German peasants.

Luther was even more vicious toward Jews. He said, “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honour of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians….”

[Would anyone dare suggest that there is no such thing as a peace-loving Lutheran because of the words of Martin Luther?]A man was arrested for writing on one of John Calvin’s tracts the words, “all rubbish,” and was put on the rack twice a day for a month. He was beheaded on July 26, 1547.

The Spanish Reformer Servetus had dared to criticize Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin declared: “If he comes here and I have any authority, I will never let him leave the place alive.”

Servetus, an anti-Trinitarian, had disagreed with Calvin via correspondence and when he visited Geneva on August 13, 1553, he went to hear Calvin preach. Calvin saw him in church and had him arrested. Calvin drew up forty charges against him including Servetus’ opposition to infant baptism and his attack upon the preaching of Calvin. On August 20, 1553, Calvin wrote: “I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death” and in October the Geneva Council ordered that he be burned alive the next day.

“Heretics” were hanged then burned in Zurich, Basil, and Geneva for disagreeing with Calvin’s teachings. During the first five years of Calvin’s rule in the small town of Geneva, 13 people were hanged, 10 were decapitated, and 35 were burned to death. A citizen could go to prison for smiling during a baptismal service or sleeping during a church service. [I know a LOT of Christians who would be in jail right now, if that were still the case.]

[Would anyone dare suggest that there is no such thing as a peace-loving Presbyterian because of John Calvin’s statements?]

In England, Henry VIII was head of the Church of England (that Henry formed after his break from Rome) and doctrinal disagreements now became high treason to be punished by disembowelment while still alive, hanging, and quartering. In the end, even failing to denounce anyone else who criticized these things became treason.

Those who left England and Europe to find religious freedom were guilty of imposing their own convictions upon others, even non-believers! Virginia had established the Anglican Church (Church of England) and forbade Quakers and Baptists to assemble, and to “rub salt into open sores,” Virginia citizens were forced to pay the salaries of Anglican preachers.The Puritans demanded freedom for themselves in England but in America they greatly restricted freedom of religion. They tried to outdo what they had endured. In Massachusetts and Virginia, Baptists and Quakers were often whipped, jailed, and had property confiscated. [By the way, these atrocities were the impetus for the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution.]

[Would anyone dare suggest that there is no such thing as a peace-loving Episcopalian because of the actions of some Puritans?] [End of summary]

The incredible phenomenon of professing Christians torturing, jailing, and killing their fellow Christians is almost unknown by most Americans; but we all know how Muslims kill Muslims and non-Muslims and we are horrified as they behead their enemies. All right, we should be horrified and repulsed at such barbarity, but remember, professing Christians did the same and worse to their “enemies”, i.e., those who disagreed with them.Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants all have a history of killing in the name of God. No group has a monopoly on hatred.

Furthermore, if one wants to start comparing savagery in the modern world, Islamic jihadists do not hold a candle to Mexican drug gangs. The numbers of people beheaded by Mexican drug gangs FAR EXCEEDS those by Islamic militants.

Donald Trump is absolutely correct when he points out the problem of an unsecured U.S. border. But why doesn’t he go on a mission to root out the Mexican drug gangs from America? There are FAR MORE of them in the United States than Islamic jihadists. FAR MORE. (Plus, he should mention that if the federal government stopped giving handouts to illegals, the flow of illegals into America would soon dry up.)

For one thing, one cannot capitalize politically upon religious bigotry when addressing Mexican drug gangs. For another thing, the motive of the gangs has nothing to do with religion: it is pure greed from (mostly) the sale of illegal drugs. And speaking of greed, NOTHING COMPARES to the international bankers in New York City and the politicians in Washington, D.C. NOTHING! In truth, those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and New York City pose a far greater risk to our liberties than Muslim terrorists or Mexican gangs. FAR GREATER!

I have documented several times in this column the fact that the Islamic terror groups ISIS, al Nusra, etc., were created by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. Anyone could find this evidence with only a few hours research. For the most part, ISIS is comprised of Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia (America’s great “ally”). In addition, Israel is the number one purchaser of smuggled oil from ISIS. Turkey is the middleman, but Israel is far-and-away the primary purchaser. Do the research yourself, folks.

In truth, Sunni and Shia Muslims have been fighting each other for hundreds of years. And until the United States decided to inject itself directly into the conflict, it was almost exclusively a Muslim vs. Muslim issue. It was America’s wars of intervention that brought the Muslim conflict home to the United States.

It was the military force of the United States that replaced secular Muslim governments in Iran and Iraq with radical religious ones. And it is the United States (via ISIS) that is currently attempting to do the same thing in Syria.President Assad has the support of most Christians in Syria. That is a FACT. So, how can Assad be this great monster and enemy of Christians when the Christian people that live there support him, fight for him, and pray for him?I have Christians in America now writing me defending their hatred of Muslims by using verses of Scripture (taken out of context, of course). They are not even timid about their hatred. So, what’s the difference between a religious Muslim who hates America and a religious Christian who hates Iran and Syria?

Do Christians not remember the story of Jonah? The prophet Jonah was sent by God to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. Jonah refused to go because he hated the Assyrians. Remember, the Assyrians had ruthlessly pillaged and plundered Israel. No doubt, Jonah had lost friends and loved ones to these atrocities. Yet, God sent him to Nineveh in order to give the Assyrians an opportunity to repent. After a submarine ride in a great fish, Jonah went to Nineveh and preached. And it was in Nineveh (located in what is now Iraq) where the greatest spiritual revival in human history took place. As a result, God spared the Assyrians from divine judgment for over 100 years.

If the story of Jonah teaches anything, it teaches God’s great love for ALL people and the responsibility of God’s men to rid hatred from their hearts and to be willing to take the message of God’s love to even those we consider our enemies. I remind readers that ISIS no more represents a majority of the Muslim people than Bibi and his fellow Zionists represent a majority of the Jewish people or Barack Obama and the neocons represent a majority of the Christian people. These wicked leaders are manipulating the masses by fueling the flames of hatred and bigotry in our hearts to further their own selfish nefarious purposes.

I urge folks to watch this video of an elderly Muslim lady courageously scolding a truckload of ISIS fighters face-to-face. She told them in the name of Allah to STOP the violence they were perpetrating.

Plus, if Christians want a verse of Scripture to condone hatred, the ONLY verse of Scripture I can find that places God’s hatred against individuals and not actions is Psalm 11:5. (Please spare me the other verses you want to send me. I’ve read them, and they are all talking about a person’s actions, NOT personal or religious bigotry.) “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.” (KJV)I am personally convinced this verse speaks of God’s divine retribution against the souls of the damned in everlasting judgment. However, if one wants to interpret that verse to the here-and-now, they need to be careful. Note God’s hatred for those “that love violence.”

I submit that many Christians have themselves become lovers of violence. Who are the ones that are singing John McCain’s chorus of “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”? Christians. Who are the ones that vehemently rejected Ron Paul’s message of peace and goodwill in 2012? Christians. Who are the ones who enthusiastically support the neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East? Christians.

In truth, U.S. taxpayers have funded the killings of over 1.5 million people in the Middle East, the vast majority of whom are innocent civilians. How would we react if alien warplanes and drones killed hundreds of thousands–and even millions–of our mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, neighbors and friends here in America? Come on, think!This report is not the only one where the truth about the casualties the U.S. has inflicted in the Middle East has been told–and what the neocon-controlled U.S. media will never tell us:

One West Point graduate and former U.S. Army officer is even more condemning in reporting the number of U.S. war victims. Joachim Hagopian claims that U.S. wars have killed over 30 million people since the end of World War II.

If even a fraction of his claim is accurate, that is a lot of blood on the hands of U.S. taxpayers. Remember that the next time you want to single out Muslims for God’s hatred upon those that “love violence.”

Donald Trump says he wants to close mosques, and Christians cheer. Really? The responsibility of the President is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and to preserve, protect and defend the Supreme Law of the land: the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of religion is sacrosanct in our Constitution and no religious test regarding constitutional liberties can be allowed. We either have freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc., for all, or we have it for none. Plus, it is a very small step from the government closing mosques to closing synagogues and churches, folks.

False religion is a curse from God upon the Church for abandoning truth. Therefore, the answer to America’s Muslim problem lies with the CHURCH, not unconstitutional discrimination by government against religion. Faith cannot be exported at the point of a gun. Christians, of all people, should understand that. Christian missionaries are evangelizing Muslim people in the very heart of Muslim countries today. I know a few of them personally. In fact, Christianity is growing faster in Middle Eastern countries than in the United States.

Christians need to remember that our federal government has ALREADY categorized Christian people as being “extremists,” “radicals,” “fringe,” etc. Do Christians really want to open the door for our federal government to start selectively outlawing religion? Talk about handing the hangman the rope; that’s it.Instead of singling out people of one religion, Trump should have focused on his original idea of securing our borders from all illegal immigration and, as President, on faithfully enforcing the immigration laws already on the books–or even asking Congress to further restrict ALL immigration until as such time as we can get a secure handle on our immigration problem. But singling out ONE religion for selective discrimination is a GIANT step in the proverbial slippery slope into oppression–and truly violates everything the First Amendment stands for.

And please don’t write me with the hackneyed hyperbole that Islam is not a religion, but only a political entity. Tell me modern American Christianity is NOT political! Get real! 501c3 churches operate DIRECTLY under the political government of the United States. By their very charters, they are government organizations.

If Christians truly believe they are justified in hating and discriminating against Muslims, why don’t they stop beating around the bush and start actually doing something about it? Why don’t they follow the dictates of the hatred of their hearts and round up every Muslim in the United States, imprison them, and then execute them? In their hearts, that’s what they WANT to do. And didn’t Jesus say something about hatred in the heart being the same as murder? So, get on with it, brethren.

Oh! And Merry Christmas! Let’s all go to church this Sunday and celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. You know, the One whom God the Father sent to Bethlehem because of His great love for the whole world.P.S. Given the current propensity of the U.S. government to declare American citizens as “extremists” and such, I invite readers to order James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law.”

Distinguished patriot luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured. I invite readers to go to my website and order the DVD of this brand new film. And please tell your friends. Order “Midnight Ride” here:

The Obama administration is no longer publicly asking for “regime change” in Syria after multiple news reports revealed how NATO and its allies have spent years supporting Islamic jihadists to try and topple Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he accepted Russia’s request that the U.S. let the Syrian people decide Assad’s political fate.

“The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change,” Kerry told reporters on Tuesday after meeting President Vladimir Putin.

This is a huge concession from the Obama administration considering the president spent the past several years stating “Assad must go.”

But why this sudden shift in public policy? Well, Czech President Milos Zeman recently stated that Turkey is friendly to the Islamic State, and there’s truth to that.

“I think Turkey is indeed a member of NATO, but sometimes behaves as if it’s more an ally of the Islamic State,” Zeman said, as quoted by Czech newspaper Parlamentni Listy. “It removes oil from Syria which finances the Islamic State.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi said nearly the exact same thing.

“[Turkey] promised us that they would stop the entry of terrorists, however we need more action in order to stop the pumping of terrorists from Turkey into Syria and into Iraq,” he stated. “Also the stopping of the smuggling of petrol from Syria and Iraq and the financing of Daesh [the Arabic name for IS] in a general sense through this illegal trade.”

And Russia presented evidence of Turkey’s theft of oil from Syria using thousands of oil tankers operating on three major smuggling routes into Turkey.

“One thing is clear: the role that Turkey is playing in this area is in many ways destructive and it’s affecting the European security, it’s affecting its neighbors,” former Mossad agent Uzi Arad told RT. “Ultimately it’s affecting its own society.”

Not long after, the Obama administration signed an agreement with Turkey to openly train and arm “moderate” Syrian rebels, but virtually all of the rebels fighting Assad in Syria have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State since at least 2013.

“The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council, the vaunted bulwarks of the moderate opposition, only really exist in hotel lobbies and the minds of Western diplomats,” journalist Ben Reynolds wrote. “There is simply no real separation between ‘moderate’ rebel groups and hardline Salafists allied with al-Qaeda.”

Reynolds wasn’t just making a baseless accusation.

“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun [in Syria],” Bassel Idriss, the commander of a Free Syrian Army rebel brigade, told the Lebanese Daily Star in 2014. “ISIS wanted to enhance its presence in the Western Qalamoun area.”

“After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA’s retreat into the hills, many units pledged allegiance to ISIS.”

Another rebel, Abu Ahmed, also said his unit was willing to collaborate with ISIS and its affiliates.

“Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra [an ISIS affiliate] because that means power and influence,” he told the Guardian.

“The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the Pentagon documentstated. “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime.’”

“Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life,” the warning leaflets given to ISIS read.

U.S. military pilots also confirmed they were ordered not to drop 75% of their ordnance on ISIS targets because they couldn’t get clearance from their superiors.

“We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.)

Comments Off on Obama Concedes to Putin After NATOs Support of ISIS Exposed

The most recent round of fraud began on March 28, 1861. That was the day the Congress of the united States of America adjourned for lack of quorum and never reconvened. Ever since, “Congress” has functioned in one of three roles—(1) as a corporate Board of Directors for private, mostly foreign-owned and deceptively named governmental services corporations operated by banking cartels (the Federal Reserve running the “United States of America, Inc.” and the IMF running the “UNITED STATES”) or (2) the government of a legislative democracy calling itself the United States of America (Minor)—American “states” more often thought of as federal territories and possessions—

All this time that you thought the members of Congress were representing you and your interests, they’ve been representing other interests entirely. That explains a lot, doesn’t it?

On March 6, 1933 the “President” of the “United States of America, Inc.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt attended a Conference of Governors meeting. These “Governors” were all “State” franchise managers of the United States of America, Inc., exactly like local franchise owners of Burger King or Sears. They got together and pledged the assets of their customers—their employers—the American states and people——as “sureties” for their private corporate debts. And then they bankrupted the “United States of America” and all the “State” franchises.

The “federal” States that were created by the 14th Amendment of their private for-profit corporation’s look-alike, sound-alike “constitution” published as the “Constitution of the United States of America” are not the same as the actual States of the Union, nor are their “State” citizens the same as American State Citizens, nor are their “US citizens” the same as Citizens of the united States, but they pretended that they were and the banks gleefully agreed.

To secure the debt owed by the “United States of America, Inc.” the banks established maritime salvage liens against every parcel of land, every business, every man, woman, and child in America, and continued to operate their doppelganger corporation under Chapter 11 Reorganization. They laid claim to your “good faith and credit” —stole your credit cards— and your identity as an American State Citizen, and they never bothered to tell the victim.

They also had you declared legally dead and probated your estate and issued bonds based on the value of your labor and private property. Just look at “your” Birth Certificate—signed by the County Registrar, an officer of the probate court, issued in the NAME of a “dead person”—you, numbered as a bond and issued on bond paper. At the same time, they converted all your private bank accounts to the ownership of the ESTATE trust they created “in your name” and moved the ESTATE offshore to Puerto Rico where you and your assets supposedly came under the foreign

maritime jurisdiction of the United States of America (Minor). Look at the NAME on “your” bank account checks.

Look at the signature line under a high powered magnifier. The IMF claims that it owns all your bank accounts. It claims that your ESTATE was “abandoned”, and now all the spoils belong to the bank. They are pressing “Congress”to pass “laws” to allow them to seize all American bank accounts—your savings, your retirement accounts, your checking accounts, everything. We’ve seen Dodd-Frank. Now we are seeing “bail-in” proposals. The Big Banks want “Congress” to front for their greed and criminality—again.

This is all fiduciary trust fraud and fiduciary trust fraud has no statute of limitations. 1862 or 1933 or 2014—it makes no difference. We suggest that members of Congress assume their public offices acting under full 100% individual commercial liability —or be ousted and tried as criminals. Next, we suggest that they honor their contract with America and issue debt-free public money— real American Dollars. Next, liquidate all the “too big to fail” banks, tear up the corporate charters these entities have violated, seize back our purloined assets, and shut them all down.

Meanwhile, the market for financial services will open up for banks operated under actual state charters.

This thing you have thought of as your government is nothing but a multi-national conglomerate run criminally amok.

The real government of this country is vested in each of you. You all hold more civil authority on the land than the entire federal government. Deal with the “FEDERAL RESERVE” and “IMF” and “CONGRESS” the same way you would deal with “TARGET” or “WALMART” or “ARBY’S” if they grossly endangered, cheated, enslaved, and defrauded you. Keep calm and get even. You all know what to do.

You have the guaranteed Universal Right of Self-Declaration provided by United Nations Conventions, plus the protections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You have the Geneva Conventions and the Lieber Code.

You have the preserved right to Common Law, guaranteed by Uniform Commercial Code 1-308 and recourse guaranteed by 1-103.6, which includes the right not to be bound by any contract that is unilateral, inequitable, involuntary, undisclosed, tainted by fraud, not in-kind, entered in your behalf by others merely claiming to represent you, or deemed to exist as the result of receiving a compelled benefit or fruit of monopoly inducement. You have the absolute right to Expatriate from their maritime jurisdiction.

Do so. When 400 million Americans stand up and clean house, the world will listen and hear the roar.

Comments Off on Notice to Congress The Days of Legalizing Theft Are Over

“Slowly I turned…step by step…inch by inch…,”
(Harry Steppe/Joey Faye Vaudeville routine, immortalized by The Three Stooges)

By Jeremiah Johnson We are currently being “funneled” into a trap that is created day-by-day with glacial slowness with the intention of nullifying the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms. The “Overton Window” is a concept of pushing forth concepts that are believed to be acceptable by the public. The media has been relentless in its aid to the administration by demonizing any and all who practice their God-given, Constitution affirmed rights to possess firearms. The final enabling of this, however, is being carried about by the U.S. Congress and by President Obama with Executive Actions.

HR 1076, “The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act,” was introduced in the House of Representatives in February of 2015 by Peter King (R, NY). Here is the summary: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015

Amends the federal criminal code to grant the Attorney General the authority to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of a federal firearms and explosives license to any individual if the Attorney General: (1) determines that such individual has been engaged in or has provided material support or resources for terrorist activities, and (2) has a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism. Allows any individual whose firearm or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action challenging the denial. Prohibits the sale or distribution of firearms or explosives to any individual whom the Attorney General has determined to be engaged in terrorist activities.

Permits the Attorney General to withhold information in firearms and explosives license denial revocation suits if the Attorney General determines that the disclosure of such information would likely compromise national security. Authorizes the Attorney General to revoke firearms and explosives licenses and permits held by individuals determined to be engaged in terrorism.

Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, used parliamentary procedure to force a vote on legislation banning gun purchases by people on the terrorist watch list. It was Republican Peter King who introduced the bill. Matt Fuller of the Huffington Post penned an article, “House Democrats Hijack Floor for Gun Vote.” Fuller neglected to highlight the fact that a Republican set the stage for it.

Once again we are “treated” to the results of the system: pseudo-bipartisan government, the illusion of a two-party system. Substantiating this concept are the continuous closed-door meetings, the latest being Paul Ryan’s with Pelosi regarding the coming Syrian “refugee” influx into the U.S. Recall, readers: this sort of thing was vividly exemplified in 2009 when Olympia Snow (R, ME) performed similar “functions” as King that enabled Obamacare to come to the floor of the Senate for consideration and eventual voting.

Pelosi’s resolution is a 439-word diatribe that flaunts the term “assault weapons” in one paragraph while unwittingly stating the duties Congressmen are not performing in the next paragraph, that reads: “Whereas the first duty of Members of Congress is to protect and defend the American people…” The subsequent paragraph convicts Congress and the Administration: “Whereas leaders of terrorist organizations have previously urged sympathizers to exploit the United States’ lax gun laws in order to perpetrate domestic terror.”

Interesting and true. Nothing could be closer to the point that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, hosted functions at the White House where the Muslim Brotherhood and other Al Qaeda operatives were hosted, feted, and recognized. The Administration enabled the creation of ISIS and all of their current activities both domestically and abroad. Let us not forget it was the Administration, not the Second Amendment, that illegally created Operation Fast and Furious leading to the death of a Border Patrol Agent. Should this not mean that the Administration and its agents will now be required to turn it all explosives and firearms, as they “perpetrate domestic terror” through such actions? Gun-control measures are crucial to the Administration and the Congress according to this “terror watch list,” because it is a list that is subject to the Attorney General (the President’s Attorney General), and can be kept out of the public eye with the subjectively-interpreted claim of being “in the interests of national security.”

Now the Administration is augmenting these efforts with an attempt to do it with aid and complicity of State governors, supported by Executive Orders. All throughout this process we see Republicans caving in and proving that there really are only interests of parties, and not true political parties. We are seeing the complete dissolution of checks and balances. We are witnessing the erosion of the Constitution incrementally.

Soon Obama will take even further steps, justifying his actions by “Executive Orders” penned illegally, as they are onerous to the Constitution (in accordance with Marbury vs. Madison). Obama is creating illegal laws under the color of law, and tying all of this in with the treaties his agent, Kerry has signed toward eventual gun confiscation with UN approval. Day by day, step by step, and inch by inch the agenda is being pushed. The question is if we the people are ever going to push in the opposite direction, and if so, when?

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne). Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape). He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com. This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

Trump, hopefully, is waking some of the RINOs up. The criticisms of Trump are amazingly​ missing something. They are​ lacking in ​negative stories from those who work for him or have had business dealings with him. After all the employees he’s had and all the business deals he’s made there is a void of criticism. In fact, long term employees call him a strong and merciful leader and say he is far more righteous and of high integrity​ than people may think​. And while it may surprise many, he’s actually humble when it comes to his generosity and kindness. A good example is a story that tells of his limo breaking down on a deserted highway outside of New York City. A middle-aged couple stopped to help him and as a thank you he paid off their mortgage, but he didn’t brag about that. Generous and good people rarely talk of charity they bestow on others. ​But as much as all this is interesting, the real thing that people want to know is what Donald Trump‘s plan is for America. It’s funny how so many people say they don’t know what it is, or they act like Trump is hiding it. The information is readily available if people would just do a little homework. But, since most Americans won’t.

1.) Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country’s problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help. Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly much more depending on what sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human life. He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred. He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military and $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.

2.) Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense. He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be. While he hasn’t said it directly that I know of, Trump’s attitude about America and about winning tells me he’d most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle. Clearly Trump is a “win at all costs” kind of guy, and I’m sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too

3.) Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles American interests come first. Always. No apologies. Maximum firepower and military preparedness. Only go to war to win. Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies. Keep the technological sword razor sharp. See the unseen Prepare for threats before they materialize. Respect and support our present and past warriors.

4.) Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals like the Obama administration treats them.

5.) Trump makes the point that China’s manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here. Although he sees China as the biggest offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing. For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the U. S., which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the U.S., once again creating jobs here.

6.) Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act – NOPEC – S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, that would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palin’s drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.

7.) Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering and put controls on immigration. (And he says he’ll get Mexico to pay for the wall, which many have scoffed at, but given his business successes I wouldn’t put it past him.) He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.

8.) Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here. The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy. He wants to make America the place to do business. He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we’ve lost to the current tax system. He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed. And for citizens he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth. He wants to change the personal income tax to: Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%. From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%. From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%. $1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%.

9.) Trump wants Obamacare repealed. He says it’s a “job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity” that “can’t be reformed, salvaged, or fixed.” He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down. He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.

10.) Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue. He has said he believes that if we don’t stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country.

11.) Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits. Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients. He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy. On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.

12.) Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs “a safety net, not a hammock.” He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work. And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.

13.) Trump believes climate change is a hoax.

14.) Trump opposes Common Core.

15.) Trump is pro-life, although he allows for an exception due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

16.) Trump is pro 2nd Amendment rights.

17.) Trump’s view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue.

18.) Trump supports the death penalty. Trump believes that there is a lack of common sense, innovative thinking in Washington (Hmmm… looks like he believes in horse sense!). He says it’s about seeing the unseen and that’s the kind of thinking we need to turn this country around. He tells a personal story to illustrate the point: “When I opened Trump National Golf Club at Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles, I was immediately told that I would need to build a new and costly ballroom. The current ballroom was gorgeous, but it only sat 200 people and we were losing business because people needed a larger space for their events. Building a new ballroom would take years to get approval and permits (since it’s on the Pacific Ocean), and cost about $5 million. I took one look at the ballroom and saw immediately what needed to be done. The problem wasn’t the size of the room, it was the size of the chairs. They were huge, heavy, and unwieldy. We didn’t need a bigger ballroom, we needed smaller chairs! So I had them replaced with high-end, smaller chairs. I then had our people sell the old chairs and got more money for them than the cost of the new chairs. In the end, the ballroom went from seating 200 people to seating 320 people. Our visitors got the space they desired, and I spared everyone the hassle of years of construction and $5 million of expense. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with a little common sense. On top of his saving years of construction and $5 million in expenses, he also was able to keep the ballroom open for business during the time it would have been under remodeling, which allowed him to continue to make money on the space instead of losing that revenue during construction time.

19) Donald Trump’s entire life has been made up of success and winning. He’s been accused of bankruptcies, but that’s not true. He’s never filed personal bankruptcy. He’s bought companies and legally used bankruptcy laws to restructure their debt, just as businesses do all the time. But he’s never been bankrupt personally.

20) He’s a fighter that clearly loves America and would fight for our nation. Earlier I quoted Trump saying, “I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately – fiercely, even.” We never hear that from Democrats or even from most Republicans. Donald Trump is saying things that desperately need to be said but no other candidate has shown the fortitude to stand up and say them. Looking over this list of what he wants for America I see a very necessary set of goals that are long past due.

Before we criticize someone because the media does, maybe we should seriously consider what he has to offer, as it is important to know what each of our candidates to replace a President who has ruined us globally, and who has put us on a path to disaster! This is not an appeal to vote for Trump, only to give some depth of comparison, before this week’s debate.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

I have absolutely no reason to dislike Trump, or to doubt the sincerity of Ms. Noonan’s article, but my research on the International Banking Cartels massive army of loyal soldiers convinces me Trump would have a short life span if he is allowed to win, which I also doubt. The Bankers have the big stick and are adept at swinging it. My instinct is, this is all a dog and pony show to demoralize his supporters.

Comments Off on Peggy Noonan wrote about Trump this weekend in her Wall Street Journal Trump – Things You Might Not Know About Him

On November 28th, 2015, Alaska State Judge Anna von Reitz (Anna Maria Riezinger) addressed an open letter to all federal agents, including the FBI and US Marshals to arrest Congress, the President and the Secretary of the Treasury. She goes into incredible detail on the fraud that has been committed. Anyone who reads this is sure to learn at least something. Below is the text and you can open the original pdf here. This has been encouraged to be shared widely.

Anna Maria Riezinger (Anna Von Reitz)

November 28, 2015 Big Lake,

Alaska Dear Federal Agents:

I am addressing this letter in this way, because it is my understanding that it will be read by members of both the FBI and the US Marshals Service. It is also my understanding that you have available for examination a wet-ink signed copy of the illustrated affidavit of probable cause entitled “You Know Something Is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” as back-up reference and evidence.

Since the publication of the affidavit a plethora of new supporting documentation and evidence has come to light. We found, for example, that on June 30, 1864, the members of Congress acting as the Board of Directors of a private, mostly foreign-owned corporation doing business as “The United States of America, Incorporated” changed the meaning of “state”, “State” and “United States” to mean “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation”. Like the 1862 change of the meaning of the word “person” to mean “corporation” cited in our affidavit, these special coded meanings of words render a drastically different picture of the world around us.

It turns out that your “personal bank account” is actually a “corporate bank account”. The “Colorado State Court” is actually the “Colorado District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Court”. If you are shocked to learn these facts, you are not alone. So are millions of other Americans. These changes were made 150 years ago and tucked away in reams of boring meeting minutes and legalistic gobbledygook meant to be applied only to the internal workings of a private governmental services corporation and its employees.

There was no public announcement, just as there was no public announcement or explanation when Congress created “municipal citizenship” known as “US citizenship” in 1868. Properly, technically, even to this day, this form of “citizenship” applies only to those born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other Insular States, so there was no real reason to educate the general public about the topic. As Congress was secretively using the labor and the private property assets of these “citizens” as collateral backing the corporate debts of “The United States of America, Inc.” there was plenty of reason to obscure this development.

At the end of the Civil War it would have been very unpopular to reveal that they were simply changing gears from private sector slave ownership to public sector slave ownership. You may be surprised to learn that slavery was not abolished by the Thirteenth or any other Amendment to any constitution then or now. Instead, slavery was redefined as the punishment meted out to criminals. Look it up and read it for yourselves. It remains perfectly legal to enslave criminals, and it was left to Congress to define who the criminals were, because Congress was given plenary power over the District of Columbia and its citizenry by the original Constitution of the Republic and could do whatever it liked within the District and the Washington, DC Municipalities.

A child picking dandelions on the sidewalk could be arbitrarily defined as a criminal and enslaved for life by the renegade Congress functioning as the government of the District of Columbia and as the Board of Directors for the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation, but for starters, Congress simply defined “US citizens” as debt slaves under the 14th Amendment of their corporation’s articles and by-laws—-which they deceptively named the “Constitution of the United States of America”.

The actual Constitution was and still is called “The Constitution for the united States of America”, but most people untrained in the Law and trusting what they believed to be their government didn’t notice the difference between “The Constitution for the united States of America” and the “Constitution of the United States of America”. Are you beginning to see a pattern of deliberate deceit and self-interest and double-speak and double-dealing? And are you also beginning to catch the drift—the motivation—behind it? Let’s discuss the concept of “hypothecation of debt”.

This little gem was developed by the bankers who actually owned and ran the governmental services corporations doing business as “The United States of America, Inc.” and as the “United States, Incorporated”. When you hypothecate debt against someone or against some asset belonging to someone else, you simply claim that they agreed to stand as surety for your debt — similar to cosigning a car loan — and as long as you make your payments, nobody is any the wiser. Normally, it’s not possible for us to just arbitrarily claim that someone is our surety for debt without proof of consent, but that is exactly what Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Conference of Governors did in March of 1933.

They named all of us and all our property as surety standing good for the debts of their own bankrupt governmental services corporation during bankruptcy reorganization—-and got away with it by claiming that they were our “representatives” and that we had delegated our authority to them to do this “for” us. The exact date and occasion when this happened and where it is recorded, is given in our affidavit. In order to pull this off, however, they had to allege that we were all “US citizens”, and therefore, all subject to the plenary power of Congress acting as an oligarchy ruling over the District of Columbia and the Federal Territories.

They did this by abusing the public trust and creating and registering millions of foreign situs trusts named after each of us. Under their own diversity of citizenship rules, corporations are considered to be “US citizens”. So they created all these foreign situs trusts as franchises of their own bankrupt corporation, used our names styled like this: John Quincy Adams—-and placed commercial liens against our names as chattel owned by their corporation and standing as surety for its debts. A group of thugs elected to political office grossly transgressed against the American people and the American states and committed the crime of personage against each and every one of us without us ever being aware of it.

They couldn’t enslave us, but they could enslave a foreign situs trust named after us— that we conveniently didn’t know existed— and by deliberately confusing this “thing” with us via the misuse of our given names, they could bring charges against what appeared to be us and our private property in their very own corporate tribunals. And so the fleecing of America began in earnest. The hirelings had our credit cards, had stolen our identities, and were ready to begin a crime spree unheralded in human history.

They claimed that we all knew about this arrangement and consented to it, because we “voluntarily” gave up our gold when FDR sent his henchmen around to collect it—-when as millions of Americans can attest, people gave up their gold in preference to being shot or having to kill federal agents. They chose life for everyone concerned over some pieces of metal, and for that, they are to be honored; unfortunately, their decision gave the rats responsible an excuse to claim that Americans wanted to leave the gold standard and wanted the “benefits” of this New Deal in “equitable exchange” for their gold, their identities, the abuse of their good names as bankrupts and debtors, the loss of allodial title to their land and homes, and their subjection as slaves to the whims of Congress.

According to them—that is, those who benefited from this gross betrayal of the public trust— we all voluntarily left the Republic and the guarantees of the actual Constitution behind, willingly subjected ourselves to Congressional rule, donated all our assets including our labor and property to the Public Charitable Trust (set up after the Civil War as a welfare trust for displaced plantation slaves), and agreed to live as slaves owned by the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation in exchange for what? Welfare that we paid for ourselves. Social Security that we paid for ourselves.

The criminality of the “US Congress” and the “Presidents” acting since 1933 is jaw-droppingly shocking. Their abuse of the trust of the American people is even worse. They have portrayed this circumstance as a political choice instead of an institutionalized fraud scheme, and they have “presumed” that we all went along with it and agreed to it without complaint. Thus, they have been merrily and secretively having us declared “civilly dead” as American State Citizens the day we are born, and entering a false registration claiming that we are “US Citizens” instead. We are told, when we wake up enough to ask, that we are free to choose our political status.

We don’t have to serve as debt slaves. We can go back and reclaim our guaranteed Republican form of government and our birthright status if we want to—- but that requires a secret process in front of the probate court and expatriation from the Federal United States to the Continental United States and all sorts of voo-doo in backrooms that can only be pursued by the few and the knowledgeable and the blessed. Everyone else has to remain as a debt slave and chattel serving whatever corporation bought the latest version of corporate “persona” named after us.

So let me ask you, as members of the FBI and as US Marshals—- does this sound like something you want to be involved with enforcing on innocent people, or does it sound like something you want to end as expeditiously as possible? The frauds that took root in the wake of the Civil War and which blossomed in the 1930’s have come to their final fruition.

Employees of the “District of Columbia Municipal Corporation” and its United Nations successors are being used as jack-booted thugs to throw Americans into privately owned “federal correctional facilities” when those who need correction—- the members of the American Bar Association and the euphemistically named and privately owned and operated “DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”—continue to ignore the fact that Americans DO have a choice and that by the millions we are demanding our freedom from all these pathetic false commercial claims and presumptions.

We are standing up before the whole world and telling these privately owned “governmental services corporations” to go bankrupt like any other corporation that doesn’t do its job and mind its budget. These entities deserve to go bankrupt and worse. They have spent money and credit that was never theirs to spend. They have defrauded millions if not billions of innocent people and they have prevented Americans from claiming their birthrights for far too long.

These people— the members of Congress and the various “Presidents” of the numerous “United States” corporations — have acted as criminals. They deserve to be recognized as such. The members of the American Bar Association have attempted to wash their hands while profiting from the situation and obstructing justice. They stand around shrugging and saying, “Well, it’s a political choice. We don’t have anything to say about that.”—–yet at the same time, they refuse to correct the probate records to reflect our chosen change of political status when we plainly identify ourselves and enunciate our Will for them.

They, too, deserve to be recognized as self-interested criminals and accomplices to identity theft, credit fraud, and worse— which is why we have recently issued a $279 trillion dollar commercial obligation lien against the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, and the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. All our assets— our bodies, homes, businesses, lands, and labor—have been signed over into the “Public Charitable Trust” by con men merely claiming to represent us. Then, when we object to their lies and entrapment, they use the same fraud against us as their excuse for bringing more false claims against us and throwing us in jail. Enough is enough.

The British Monarch and the Lords of the Admiralty have promoted this fraud against us at the same time they have claimed to be our trustees, allies and friends in perpetuity. It’s time to clear the way for us to politely and peaceably exit from any presumption that we are or ever were “US citizens”, willing participants in the “Public Charitable Trust”, or willing “sureties” for the debts of any private bank-run governmental services corporation merely calling itself the United States of Something or Other.

We repudiate any presumption of private municipal citizenship or obligation to the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation or any successor thereof, and demand an immediate and permanent correction of the civil record to reflect our birthright status as American State Citizens, nunc pro tunc.

As for you, as “Federal Agents”, you have a lot to think about. For starters— who really pays your paycheck? Is it the goons in Washington, DC? Or does it all come from the American people you are supposed to be serving? Do you believe for one moment that anyone just lined up and gave their gold to FDR voluntarily? Do you believe that anyone gave away all their property and the guarantees of the actual Constitution for the “privilege” of paying for Social Security? No? Wake up and smell the java and start doing your real jobs. If anyone complains—arrest him.

We are reopening the American Common Law Courts expressly for the purpose of settling disputes related to living people and their property assets in excess of $20 as mandated by the Seventh Amendment. We, the American people, are the ones holding absolute civil authority upon the land of the Continental United States, and we give you permission to arrest the members of Congress, the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and any other politician or appointee pretending to speak for us so as to enslave us and bring false claims against us via this institutionalized fraud scheme.

We want it recognized for what it is and dismantled and repudiated tout de suite. Any court that is caught arresting and prosecuting Americans under the presumptions just described to you— such as bringing charges against foreign situs trusts with names styled like this: John Quincy Adams, or Cestui Que Vie trusts styled like this: JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, or Puerto Rican public transmitting utilities styled like this: JOHN Q. ADAMS—-it is your responsibility to make sure that any individuals being addressed by these courts were actually born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, or one of the other Insular States and that they are not ignorant American State Citizens being falsely registered and railroaded.

Do you understand? Is it now completely clear who the criminals are? Your actual employers and benefactors are being attacked and defrauded by criminals pretending to act as their elected representatives and accomplices in black robes who are serving as enforcers of this fraud for profit. This has been happening right under your noses. This whole circumstance has escaped broad scale public understanding because it was being pursued by private governmental services corporations owned and operated by international banking cartels who claimed that these “private arrangements” were none of the public’s business, despite the grotesque and far-ranging impact these cozy understandings have had upon the people of this and many other countries.

Let it be perfectly clear to you that the business of these private corporations has become our business because they have operated in violation of their charters, in violation of the treaties allowing their existence, and in violation of the National Trust. The American Bar Association and the Internal Revenue Service have both been owned and operated as private foreign bill collectors and trust administrators by Northern Trust, Inc., in violent conflict of interest. They are not professional associations, non-profits, nor units of government. They are con artists and privateers whose licenses expired as of September 1, 2013.

The United States Marshals Service is enabled to act in the capacity of constitutionally – sworn Federal Marshals and we invoke their office and service as such; failure to accept the public office means rejection of all authority related to us. The same may be said of the FBI. Either you do your jobs as constitutionally sworn public officers, or you act as private mall cops in behalf of the offending corporations and under color of law when you pretend to have any public authority or function.

Most Iraqis, be they civilians, military personnel, or government officials, do not trust Americans.

At a base level, that makes all kinds of sense. After all, the US did launch what amounted to a unilateral invasion of the country just a little over a decade ago, and when it was all said and done, a dictator was deposed but it’s not entirely clear that Iraqis are better off for it.

ISIS controls key cities including the Mosul, the country’s second largest, and security is a daily concern for the populace. The Americans are still seen – rightly – as occupiers, and Washington’s unwillingness inability to effectively counter ISIS has created a culture of suspicion in which most Iraqis believe the US is in cahoots with the militants for what WaPo described as “a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.”

Some of the distrust, the US contends, is fostered by Iran. Tehran wields considerable influence both within the Iraqi military and in political circles in Baghdad. When Ash Carter announced that the US was set to send an “expeditionary targeting force” to the country to assist in raids on Islamic State targets, PM Haider al-Abadi flatly rejected the proposal, saying that “Iraq does not need foreign ground combat forces on Iraqi land.” Abadi rejected a similar Pentagon trial balloon involving Apaches helicopters last month.

(Abadi)Meanwhile, Tehran’s Shiite militias threatened to attack any US soldiers operating on Iraqi soil. “We will chase and fight any American force deployed in Iraq. Any such American force will become a primary target for our group. We fought them before and we are ready to resume fighting,” a spokesman for Kata’ib Hezbollah said. Similarly, influential Shiite lawmakers like the infamous Hakim al-Zamili have called on Abadi to seek direct military intervention from Moscow to expel foreign forces from the country.Now, in the latest example of just how tenuous Washington’s grip on the region has become, the Iraqi parliament’s Security and Defense Committee is calling for the review and cancellation of Baghdad’s security agreement with the US.

“The government and parliament need to review the agreement signed with the United States on security because the United States does not seriously care about its fulfillment,” committee member Hamid al-Mutlaq, a senior Sunni lawmaker told Sputnik on Wednesday. “We demand that it be annulled,” he added. Who will fill the void you ask? You guessed it:

“Soon, a meeting [of the committee] with Prime Minister Haider Abadi will be held, at which we will propose cooperating with Russia in carrying out airstrikes against IS and in the fight against terrorism in Iraq,” another committee member said earlier this week. Recall that this is precisely what we said would happen once we learned in September that Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria had set up a joint intelligence sharing cell in Baghdad.

It was clear from the beginning that Tehran saw an opportunity to consolidate its power in Iraq and preserve its influence in Syria by convincing Vladimir Putin that Russia could replace the US as Mid-East superpower puppet master by helping Tehran to defeat the insurgency in Syria and boot the US from Iraq once and for all. Moscow will of course get a warm reception from Iraqi lawmakers thanks to the fact that many MPs are loyal to Iran.

This makes sense logistically as well. Once the Russians and Iranians have retaken Aleppo (which admittedly is taking a while), they can push east towards Raqqa and from there, move straight across the border, effectively pinching ISIS between an advance from the west and Iran’s Shiite militias already operating in Iraq. Of course that will entail some measure of cooperation with the US, France, Britain, and, once in Iraq, the Peshmerga. It is at that point that Washington’s resolve when it comes to preserving whatever charade is being perpetrated in Raqqa will be put to the ultimate test.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how the US responds to a move by Baghdad to nullify the security agreement. Washington knows it can land troops in Iraq by simply going through Erbil which is precisely what Turkey did last Friday. The KRG/ Barzani end-around serves to give the troop deployments a kind of quasi-legitimacy. That is, the Kurds control the territory and are self governing, so when Erdogan (and, soon Obama) drop troops in northern Iraq against Baghdad’s wishes, they can claim it’s not a violation of sovereignty. As we saw over the weekend, Iraqi officials aren’t going to stand for it going forward although now that it’s become clear that NATO and the Security Council aren’t going to be any help (just as we said), Iraq’s ambassador to the UN is striking a concilliatory tone, saying Baghdad will try to settle the dispute with Turkey “bilaterally.”

It now appears that the stage is set for Baghdad to claim that the US, like Turkey, is illegitimately occupying the country (again). If Iraq nullifies the security agreement and moves to invite the Russians into the country, the US will be forced to either pack up and leave, cooperate with Moscow, or fight for the right to preserve American influence.

Decisions, decisions?

Comments Off on Iraq Seeks To Cancel Security Agreement With US Will Invite Russia To Fight ISIS

“If you fail to subdue or kill the bully, the bully owns you, either by fear, or by force.” -Ron Ewart

We do not know if Obama is a Muslim in his heart and mind, but without a doubt Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. He has proven it time and time again starting with his Cairo speech in June 2009, early on in his presidency. Perhaps this is a projection of his early childhood when raised in Indonesia, a Muslim country. Or perhaps it was because his Kenyan father was a Muslim. Maybe he was converted to Islam during his clandestine trip to Pakistan in 1981. Or, perhaps it goes deeper than that. Could it be that Obama is a Muslim version of the Manchurian candidate? You decide!

But Obama is more than just a Muslim sympathizer. He has aided and abetted radical Islam causes by failing to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic and by his in-action in the face of a direct threat against American sovereignty and security.

By not seeing the potential growth of an Al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq, (ISIS) Obama negligently pulled our troops out of Iraq against the advice of his generals. Not only did this criminal action by Obama allow ISIS to metastasize, it allowed Iran, a sponsor of international terrorism, to move in and influence the government of Iraq, thus rendering Iraq just another Iranian puppet.

As a result, Iran’s puppet, Iraq, (both Muslim Shia) refused to let the Sunnis and Kurds in Northern Iraq participate in the Iraq government, thereby fueling disaffection, insurrection and the growth of ISIS. It also re-ignited the 1,500-year-old civil war between Shia and Sunnis over the successor to the prophet Muhammad. Because of the Sunni’s sympathy with ISIS and not the government of Iraq, when the bully ISIS came to conquer, the Sunni military that American soldiers trained, turned over their weapons to ISIS that American taxpayers funded and then ran for the shadows. Suddenly, virtually overnight, ISIS had a powerful military, armed with American hardware, funded by Iraqi oil and the spoils of war.

But Obama’s actions and in-actions go even deeper than criminal negligence, to virtually aiding and abetting the enemy. That, by any definition, is treason. Iraq was and still is a strategic nation, in the middle of Muslim tribal chaos and Islamic civil war. American military presence was crucial to the stability of the entire, unstable Middle East region.

American taxpayers had already funded the war in Iraq to the tune of over $2,000,000,000,000 (that’s Trillion) and over 4,000 of its sons and daughters paid the ultimate price, with thousands more severely wounded or permanently disabled.

America’s continued military presence in Iraq would have been a significant deterrent against the rise of radical Islam (ISIS), Syria and Iran adventurism and a Sunni-Shia civil war. We had military and air bases built all over Iraq, at taxpayer expense. Those same taxpayers further funded a $1,000,000,000 (that’s Billion) American Embassy in Baghdad. (God knows why the State Department needed a $1 Billion embassy in Baghdad. Perhaps it was more than an embassy. Perhaps the embassy was and still is a front for the CIA.)

When ISIS kept growing, Obama played it down. When ISIS took town after town in Syria and Iraq, Obama did nothing. After being pressured to DO SOMETHING, he commenced a limited, hands-tied-behind-their-backs, military pinprick. ISIS kept growing. Obama limited American air strikes so as to prevent civilian casualties, or inflict environmental damage. Many warplanes returned to base with bomb loads still attached to the aircraft. The military begrudgingly carried out Obama’s insane orders to fight a war with no purpose, no goal and no end game. It was Obama’s war for show and propaganda with no intention of winning anything. Sacrificing military lives and hardware for show and propaganda, is even more treasonous.

ISIS is still growing and implanting itself in other countries and aligning itself with other radical Islamic groups. Because they have been so successful, they attract radical Muslim youths from all over the world to join them, including American Muslim immigrants that were imported to America from other Muslim countries. ISIS is, without a doubt, an existential threat to the United States that Obama refuses to acknowledge, much less confront that threat decisively.

With each terror attack success, more radicals flock to the cry of Allahu Akbar (Allah is great), fueled by a radical interpretation of the Qur’an. (It still remains a question whether radical Islamists are really radical when they are just following the ramblings of the alleged prophet Muhammad, as he laid out his personal interpretations of Allah‘s mandates in the Qur’an.)

For failing to keep troops in Iraq, the blood spilled at each ISIS or Al Qaeda terrorist attack is on Obama’s hands. He alone had the power to prevent it. Radical Islamic groups are now competing with each other to see who can inflict the most civilian casualties. Each of these growing terrorist attacks where blood is spilled is on Obama’s hands.

In the recent Paris terrorist attack, 130 died needlessly and over 350 were wounded. Their blood is on Obama’s hands.

In Egypt a Russian passenger jet was blown out of the sky over the desolate Sinai Peninsula by an ISIS bomb. Russian blood is on Obama’s hands.

For failing to stop the Syrian butcher, Basar Al Assad, the blood of 250,000 Syrians is on Obama’s hands. That civil war, that Obama could have stopped, is creating floods of refugees pouring into Europe and trying to get into America. Many of those refugees are terrorists. Russia has now joined Assad with Russian military assets, making the removal of Assad by America an invitation to a third world war between the two super powers.

Now, spilled blood from Islamic terrorism has landed on American shores in what is surely the first of more to come terrorist attacks by radical or radicalized Muslims. If there is any doubt in anyone’s mind, given the preliminary evidence that the San Bernardino attack was a radical Islamic terrorist attack, they are delusional. Even before the time this article is published, all doubt will have been removed.

Syed Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist attacker and his Muslim wife, were prepared to perpetrate massive, unprecedented carnage somewhere in America. Perhaps his anger over an employment injustice or dispute, enraged him to the point he attacked his co-workers instead for personal reasons, prior to the planned terrorist event. Or maybe the attack on the service center was the plan all along. Nevertheless, there is no doubt he was planning a massive terrorist attack, given the arsenal he had assembled. The question is, who are his co-conspirators. He had to have had help.

But it makes no difference whether the San Bernardino terrorist attack was inspired by ISIS, Al Qaeda, or just a self-radicalized Islamic nut case. The growth of radical Islam has been and is on Obama’s watch. The American blood spilled in San Bernardino is on Obama’s hands.

It must be clear to everyone with any intellect at all, that terrorism will not be stopped until the terrorists are crushed where they live. Once crushed the draw to terrorism for young Jihadists will cease. Obama’s job was to crush the terrorists and he has failed miserably to do the job, leaving all Americans in grave peril in their own country.

Obama’s Sunday night speech did nothing to allay the fears of those Americans who will now think twice about going to the mall, or the theater, or a sports event for fear of another terrorist attack. He offered nothing new in the fight on terror in that speech. His emphasis on more gun control and trying to make us feel guilty about a possible Muslim backlash were hollow and meaningless. More gun control would not have stopped the San Bernardino attack and there is no noticeable backlash against Muslims in America, even though out of the five major religions in the world, only one of those religions, Islam, is mandating that everyone else convert or die.

We say, “Muslims, heal thine self or the wrath of righteous indignation will descend upon you with full force and fury.”

We predict that another San Bernardino style terrorist attack in America, will incite the people to call for all Islamic terrorists to be crushed, anywhere on the planet, with America’s full military might and they won’t care about civilian casualties or environmental damage. Trump is already making that call and that is why he is still popular and rising in popularity.

Obama’s foreign policy actions or in-actions don’t stop at criminal negligence, or even treason. His socialist, radical environmental policies, Muslim loving and unconstitutional Executive Orders just add to the list of what may be the most irreparable damage that any president has done to American freedom and sovereignty. His obsession with “climate change”, gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens and importing Syrian refugees into America while people are dying all over the planet from Islamic terrorist attacks, borders on neurotic paranoia, just plain stupidity, or pure evil. Any sane person knows gun controls won’t stop terrorists or lone, crazed gunmen in America, or anywhere else.

Obama’s constant deflection to other issues, or blaming others for his failures, when presented with major crises, is classic narcissism. He is either clueless, or diabolically evil.

Why Obama has not been impeached or indicted for treason by now will ring in the history books for centuries. How a man like Obama, with such a tortured past, ever became president of the Unites States of America, falls squarely on an electorate that has lost all allegiance to the values and foundation of a free society conceived in liberty and dedicated to the preservation of the individual, unalienable rights of its citizens. Obama was before his election and still is as President and will continue to be at the end of his term, anti-America and pro Muslim.

It will take decades to repair what this monster and the Democrats, that aided and abetted him, have unleashed on America and its people. It may even be irreparable. Meanwhile, because of his foreign policy failures, the streets of America could run red with blood as radical Islam infiltrates the fabric of America and becomes a cancer that can’t be cured. That blood will be on Obama’s hands and those people that supported him and those people that elected him.

Yes, Obama is the cause, but millions of Americans who voted for this Islamic Trojan Horse are the cause of the cause and they too share the responsibility and the blame for all that blood that will be spilled in American cities, in the name of radical Islam. That blood will stain Obama’s hands and forever render him the most dangerous and inept president that clueless liberal Americans ever elected to this high office. Will that same clueless liberal group of Americans be stupid enough to elect a hopelessly corrupt, female carbon copy of Obama? If they do …… ?

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.

Back in 2011 we facetiously noted that innocent Americans were being added to terror watchlists and No-Fly lists at an alarming pace. So much so, we opined, that by 2020every person in the United States would be deemed a terrorist and that the entire world would be on a government watchlist by 2025.

We were kind of joking… but only kind of, because as we highlighted last year, the President approved a substantial expansion of the lists wherein concrete facts are no longer necessary for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to flag pretty much anyone, for any reason as being suspected of terrorism. In fact, the new rules set forth by the administration make it possible for one to be added to a watchlist for being suspected of being a suspected terrorist. Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous on its face.

As we warned, the anti-gun left and especially the Obama administration is always looking for new and innovative ways to disarm American citizens. Whether it be high taxation of ammunition, identification requirements for purchasing ammo as in California (but no worries, because you can still vote without an I.D.), or outright bans on the importation of firearms and related accessories, there is an overt and sustained push to overhaul (i.e. eliminate) the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

In what can only be described as nothing short of a full-court Obama press against America’s gun owners, in his weekly Saturday address to the nation the President has now taken his disarmament agenda to the next level, suggesting that it is “insane” for anyone on a watch list to own a gun.

“This tragedy reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power, together, to keep our communities safe,” Obama said in his address. “We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons — weapons of war — to kill as many people as they could. It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.”

Obama, who has said that failing to pass comprehensive gun reform is the greatest frustration” of his time in office, said it was ridiculous that people on a no-fly list in the United States could legally purchase a gun.“That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now,” he said. “We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but — at a bare minimum — we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.”

Keep in mind that, as Senator Rand Paul warned on the Senate floor, Someone Who Has Guns, Ammunition, 7 Days of Food can be considered a potential terrorist. Moreover, a recent report highlights scores of other reasons for why someone may qualify as a domestic terrorist:So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist? Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:

• Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)

• Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government

• Homeschooling

• Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties

• Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

And once you’re on the list, there is pretty much no way to get off because the government, citing national security reasons, doesn’t have to release any details and the burden of proof falls on the individual who has been identified as a terrorist, potential terrorist, or someone suspected of being a suspected terrorist.Those secretly blacklisted have no real path to challenge their status, states a new report, thus indefinitely restricting those listed from travel or simply getting a job.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans and foreigners languish in the watchlist system, considered “known or suspected terrorists” based on secret rules and evidence that are basically impenetrable should the average suspect attempt to contest them, says a new report by the ACLU that highlights these challenges.

Source: The Daily Sheeple

Obama’s latest proposal would mean that not only would those added to watch lists without cause or due process be restricted from flying or have a near impossible time getting a job, they would not be allowed to purchase firearms. The next step, of course, would be the disarmament of those who already own guns.

Also Read:

Do You Qualify as a Domestic Terrorist?Terrorist Watch List May Exceed US Population by 2019, World Population by 2023‘Terror’ Watchlists Erasing American Rights: Feds to “Revoke Passports Without Charge or Trial”Obama Approves Substantial Expansion of Terrorist Watch Lists: “Concrete Facts Are Not Necessary”Shock Report About Secret Obama Treaty: “Unlimited Migration From Mexico… Gun Import Bans… Ammunition Bans”

Paul to Congress: “Someone Who Has Guns, Ammunition, 7 Days of Food” Can Be Considered a Potential Terrorist

Comments Off on Here He Goes Again Obama Says Its Insane For Millions of Americans On Watchlists To Own Guns

The numbers do not lie, false flag mass murder events are exponentially increasing under Obuma. First, it was a case of “give up your guns” and we will protect you from the mentally ill mass murderers. Now, the Obuma mantra consists of “giving up your guns” and we will protect you from ISIS (that we created).

Mass Shootings Under the Last Five Presidents

Mother Jones acquired data, immediately following the most recent mass murder event, and the numbers were related to the totality of mass murders for the last five Presidents. The numbers associated with mass murder and the Obuma Presidency are stunning. The numbers simple do not lie.

Ronald Reagan- 1981-1989 11 mass shootings

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

George H. W. Bush- 1989-1993 12 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton- 1993-2001 23 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

George W. Bush- 2001-2009 20 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Obuma- 2009-2015 (< 7 years) 162 mass murders

Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

Statistical Analysis

The numbers do not lie with regard to the number of mass murders that have taken place under Obuma vs. the four Presidents that have come before him.

President Average Number of Mass Murders Per Month

Obuma 23+ per year or almost 2 per month

GHW Bush 3.0 per year

Clinton 2.875 per year

GW Bush 2.5 per year

Ronald Reagan 1.375 per year

An American citizen is nearly 8 (7.666) times more likely to be killed in a mass murder event under the current President than the previous four Presidents.

During the incomplete tenure of the Obuma administration, there have a total of 163 murders in less than 7 years. During the previous tenure of the last 4 Presidents, 66 total mass murder events. These 66 mass murders took place in 28 Presidential years. When one takes this perspective, an American is 10 times more likely to be killed in a mass murder event under Obuma than the four previous Presidents.

If Obuma’s mass murder statistics were only limited to one year, we might safely conclude that we are merely witnessing a statistical anomaly. However, as Obuma approaches his 7th year in office and see such a dramatic uptick in mass murder events under his watch, we no longer have an anomaly; we have a clear and undeniable pattern. We desperately need to be asking why?

It is an undeniable fact that every time there is an active shooter event, Obuma turns up the propaganda about how his is going to be forced to use executive action (Executive Order) in order to separate most Americans from their Second Amendment rights to own a firearm.

As we approach the inevitable, World War III, there is a desperate need to put America into a type of undeclared martial law in order to control the people before they become the cannon fodder for the very next banker war for profit.

In the Beginning

When mass murders increased under the Obama administration, the reason most cited was mental illness. The Virginia Tech event and the “alleged” Sandy Hook event are cases in point in which the alleged shooter was on psychotropic medication for mental illness. Very quickly, this administration quickly moved to take as many guns as they could from veterans citing reasons related to PTSD diagnoses. This move made a lot of sense when one realizes that veterans would form the backbone of any resistance movement against the coming martial law tyranny which will precede World War III.

The Obuma administration is now attempting to perpetrate a new fraud on the US. Instead of the mentally ill engaging in acts of mass murder, it is now ISIS that is threat. Why the shift? Because the emphasis of the Obuma administration has shifted from gun confiscation from the veterans, to including gun confiscation for the entire population. History speaks very clearly as to what lies next.

Conclusion

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

INDICTE HIM

TRY HIM

HANG HIM

FORGET HIM

EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO

PISS ON HIS GRAVE

Comments Off on Until Obuma Gets the Guns, False Flag Attacks Are Now Part of American Daily Life

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.

OLDDOGS COMMNETS!

Dear readers, please for just a moment consider how easy it would be for a force that was ideologically consolidated and in complete control of almost all public information, to keep the Nations of earth confused and terrorized.Think about something besides your next infatuation with entertainment and consider how stupid it would be for the people controlling all governments to destroy all of earths natural, and man made assets, especially when it is so easy to get people to do whatever they wanted through FEAR! Think for a moment how easy it is to control your children by FEAR of losing their recreation time, or a good old fashion ass whupping! THINK about how stupid it would be to destroy all of your own assets and no longer have the ability to start over and build something better. In short; a Nuclear Armageddon ain’t gonna happen! That would destroy everything they need to control anything, and CONTROL is their only real long term objective! Why would they make the earth uninhabitable for their offspring when they have been using FEAR successfully for generations? What they will do however is use our FEAR to create a world wide hatred of our neighbors and keep us killing each other. Conventional warfare will over time demoralize and bankrupt all Nations and starve those not capable of fighting. At the present time AMERICA is their number one target and it will be destroyed economically and create chaos never before seen in AMERICA. We will wind up killing each other for a rifle or loaf of bread. This CHAOS will justify our imprisonment and selective extermination. Their plan is presently in operation and unstoppable because we the people are almost incapable of cognitive thought from years and years of being self-centered and infatuated with pleasure and leisure time. Our brains are just like our physical health; use it or lose it! Our minds are as obese as our fat backsides and we are so self centered it is impossible to plan what we will do in an emergency or fix for dinner tomorrow.

IS IT TIME TO GIVE UP!

HELL NO!!!

NOW is the time to admit our stupidity and get ready to fight back at those who want us dead or controllable. Do your home work and learn how important it is to IDENTIFY the International Banking Cartel and home-in on them PERSONALLY. Make them known and the one thing on every human beings mind. Find out every thing you can about their daily lives and make it known to everyone else. Make them the only thing people talk about continuously. Abandon all of your entertainment obsessions and focus on their every bowel movement, every breath of air, every though in their chaotic minds. Make them as visible as the scumbags we call our so called elected leaders. Make it impossible for them to pass gas without being ridiculed. THEIR PRIVACY IS THEIR ACHILLES HEEL; USE IT TO BLEED THEM TO DEATH! WE WILL LOSE EVERYTHING IF WE DON’T FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM!REAL AMERICANS WOULD RATHER BE DEAD THAN SLAVES!

In conversations with various people, I have often brought up the fact that the Media seems to have no memory of the past, is entirely uniform when it comes to urging war, and patently ignores a plethora of glaring issues. The issues it does catch sight of, it seems incapable of penetrating, remaining at the surface of things, and therefore keeping discourse at the most superficial level. When questioned about these tendencies of Media, the responses I’ve received range from “well, that’s just the way they maintain ratings”, to “but my paper or network has the better ideology”. Americans appear satisfied to accept what occurs to them as given, and like Pangloss to reply, indeed, this is “the best of all possible worlds”.

I beg to differ.

Here are a few troubling questions that I feel greatly undermine the idea that Mainstream Media is credible:

1: Why is it that when it comes to war, the same news sources that criticize the president constantly, suddenly all seem to lionize his cause? Shouldn’t the opposite be true? Shouldn’t there be at least some dissent among the Mainstream sources? Isn’t this a little suspicious, if the press is free and independent?

2: How can it be that not only the press, but the entire nation has forgotten that the first case made to the American people concerning war with Syria was sold as being in order to depose Assad? Clearly ISIS existed at that point, so why were they not the target? When exactly did they become the world’s Super Enemy? Apparently this happened a few months after the Media campaign to attack Syria by other means failed.

3: When did it become okay to terrorize the viewing audience, weaving dubious tales of extremists hiding under every bush, meanwhile replaying distressing footage over and over again (like the falling of the towers), until the public is thoroughly brutalized. How many times did we need to see the towers fall? 1,000? 10,000? How disrespectful to the dead, and to the living.

4: When exactly did the trail of bodies following the Clintons not become news anymore?

Questions, questions, questions. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

With a bit of research it becomes apparent that the entire Media apparatus is beholden to a handful of enormously powerful Corporations, which teach the public that this, of course, is a good thing. Corporations ought to be as large as possible they say, because: Capitalism! If the prevailing ideology makes them insanely powerful, and “accidentally” coincides with 99% of Americans being poor and in debt, well, at least we’re not Communists!

And that is what you call a false dialectic.

These entities, therefore, through their Media medium, construct opinion, polarize politics, shred the past like Winston in 1984, and obscure the present with the dope of hypnotic flicker rates, tantalizing tag lines, and the literal dope of drugs like Prozac and Ritalin, à laBrave New World.

But what would a legitimate media look like, you might ask?

1: A legitimate media would harp incessantly on our nation’s constant violation of international law when waging war, and the hypocrisy of claiming to defend Democracy while violating it.

2: A legitimate media would remember that the Fed promised before its inception to scientifically prevent booms and busts, inflation, depressions, and crashes. Rather than analyze its promises and policies, what we get is stale superficial commentary, which completely overlooks history and current reality. No one apparently can criticize the printing of endless paper money, the mountains of debt our economy runs on, or the international banks (of which the Fed is one), which strip countries bare of resources (see: North America), and gamble trillions on derivatives while forcing austerity onto entire nations. And all the economists can say is: “wow, look at those fourth quarter gains.”

3: A legitimate media would run Trump and Hillary straight into the Gulf, and refuse to ratify the side show spectacle of our so-called presidential electoral proceedings.

Amidst the glossy blues and reds of our dynamic digital cable displays (which seem to progress faster than the state of politics), planes are disappearing and we’re chasing pings, North Korea is hacking Sony in a fit of pique, Bill O’Reilly is killing great men faster than you can say “obstreperous,” while talking heads yell talking points on split screens to a divided audience.

Is this “just the way things are,” or are we being gamed?

To many it is becoming clear that the Media is now an organized apologetics machine, and is no longer a source for information, as it pours forth the dialectics of the Anglo-American establishment. Big Money, which owns Big Media, supersizes the insignificant; barricades inconvenient facts; sells politics like Big Macs; tempts cravenly the debt-ridden with overpriced expendables; is tre cool with hyping vacuous celebrities, one-note politicians and golden doors, all at one time and with great gusto.

And we become dumber and dumber as we absorb it all: fake news, fake money, fake culture, and fake representative Government. (Ah, America in 2015. Each day is better than the next.)

Former president Eisenhower once famously said, “Beware the military industrial complex,” and we should have listened to him. But now the objectives of Big Military, Big Media/ Business/ Entertainment, and Big White House all seamlessly merge and overlap. One could be excused for wondering if we’re living in a thinly disguised tyranny, when the light of truth seems so strictly verboten.

“Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.” — Barack Obama

“We reiterate our strong commitment to the United Nations (UN) as the foremost multilateral forum entrusted with bringing about hope, peace, order and sustainable development to the world. The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance and multilateralism.” — Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

“We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty. We welcome the discussion about the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR’s basket of currencies. We support the IMF to make its surveillance framework more integrated and even-handed.”— Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

Here is where many political and economic analysts go terribly wrong in their examination of current global paradigms: They tend to blindly believe the mainstream narrative rather than taking into account conflicting actions and statements by political and financial leaders. Even in the liberty movement, composed of some of the most skeptical and media savvy people on planet Earth, the cancers of assumption and bias often take hold.

Some liberty proponents are more than happy to believe in particular mainstream dynamics. They are happy to believe, for example, that the growing “conflict” between the East and West is legitimate rather than engineered.

You can list off quotation after quotation and policy action after policy action proving that Eastern governments, including China and Russia, work hand in hand with globalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank and the U.N. toward the goal of global governance and global economic centralization. But these people simply will not listen. They MUST believe that the U.S. is the crowning villain, and that the East is in heroic opposition. They are so desperate for a taste of hope they are ready to consume the poison of false dichotomies.

The liberty movement is infatuated with the presumption that the U.S. government and the banking elites surrounding it are at the “top” of the new world order pyramid and are “clamoring for survival” as the U.S. economy crumbles under the facade of false government and central banking statistics. How many times have we heard over the past year alone that the Federal Reserve has “backed itself into a corner” or policy directed itself “between a rock and a hard place?”

I have to laugh at the absurdity of such a viewpoint because central bankers and internationalists have always used economic instability as a means to gain political and social advantage. The consolidation of world banking power alone after the Great Depression is a testament to this fact. And even former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted (at least in certain respects) that the Federal Reserve was responsible for that terrible implosion, an implosion that conveniently served the interests of international cartel banks like JPMorgan.

But the Federal Reserve is no more than an appendage of a greater system; it is NOT the brains of the operation.

In his book Tragedy And Hope, Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member and mentor to Bill Clinton, stated:

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.

In “Ruling The World Of Money,”Harper’s Magazine established what Quigley admitted in Tragedy And Hope — that the control of the global economic policy and, by extension, political policy is dominated by a select few elites, namely through the unaccountable institutional framework of the BIS.

The U.S. and the Federal Reserve are mere tentacles of the great vampire squid that is the new world order. And being a tentacle makes one, to a certain extent, expendable, if the trade will result in even greater centralization of power.

The delusion that some people within the liberty movement are under is that the fall of America will result in the fall of the new world order. In reality, the fall of America is a necessary step towards the RISE of the new world order. The Rothschild-owned financial magazine The Economist reaffirmed this trend of economic “harmonization” in its 1988 article “Get Ready For A World Currency By 2018,” which described the creation of a global currency called the “Phoenix” over three decades:

The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate — and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate — would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case.

…The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.

We are now on the cusp of the “prediction” set forth by The Economist over 27 years ago. The BRICS nations, including Vladimir Putin’s Russia, have all consistently called for the formation of a global reserve currency system under the direct control of the IMF and predicated on the basket methodology of the SDR. This new global system, as The Economist suggested, requires the marginalization of existing power structures and the end of sovereign economic control. Governments around the world including the U.S. would be at the fiscal mercy of the new financial high priests through the use of insidious debt based incentives given or withheld at the whim of the IMF.

China is set to be inducted into the SDR basket in 2015, with specific economic changes to be made by September 2016, a development I have been warning about for years. The “vote” is in and the decision has been finalized. While some in the mainstream media are playing off the rise of the Yuan as meaningless, IMF head Christine Lagarde presents the shift as a major event, not for China, but for the IMF and the SDR which she proudly refers to as the “currency of currencies”.

The addition of China to the SDR, I believe, is the next trigger event for the continuing removal of the dollar as the world reserve currency. The monetary shift may explode with speed if Saudi Arabia follows through with a possible plan to depeg from the dollar, effectively ending the petrodollar status the U.S. has enjoyed for decades.

This is, of course, the same IMF-controlled SDR system that Putin and the Kremlin have called for, despite the running fantasy that Putin is somehow an opponent of the globalists.

Putin continues to press the “U.S. as bumbling villain” narrative, while at the same time supporting globalist institutions and the internationalization of economic and political governance. While many people were overly focused on his “calling out” of the U.S. and its involvement in the creation of ISIS in his recent speech at the U.N., they seemed to have completely overlooked his adoration of the United Nations and the development of a global governing body. Putin often speaks at cross purposes just as Barack Obama does — one minute supporting sovereignty and freedom, the next minute calling for global centralization:

Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone.

Putin also proclaimed his support for the UN’s fight against “climate change”, the same climate change which Secretary of State John Kerry argued was a “contributing factor” in the crisis in Syria and the rise of ISIS. I have written in the past on the fraud of “man made climate change (global warming)” and will not enter that tangent here now, but the point remains that Putin is fully on board with said fraud like all other puppet politicians around the globe:

…One more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum.

Indeed, it has been Putin’s intention all along to support and defend the internationalist framework while at the same time participating in the theatrical East versus West false paradigm:

In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests.

First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this.

The world economic crisis shows the “inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help “to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability.”

It is rather interesting how the desires of the BRICS seem to directly coincide with the designs of international bankers. This Hegelian dialectic is perhaps the most elaborate public distraction of all time, with the ultimate solution to the artificially engineered problem being a single “multilateral” but centrally dictated world economic system and world government, i.e., the new world order.

Again, the globalists at the BIS and the IMF require a diminished U.S. dollar, greatly reduced U.S. living standards and a much smaller U.S. geopolitical footprint before they can establish and finalize a single publicly accepted global elitist oligarchy.

If you cannot understand why it seems that the Federal Reserve and U.S. government appear hell-bent on self-destruction, then perhaps you should consider the facts and motivations at hand. Then, you’ll realize it is THEIR JOB to destroy America, not save America. When you are finally willing to accept this reality, every disastrous development since the inception of the Fed a century ago, as well as all that is about to happen in the next few years, makes perfect sense.

This is not to say that the ultimate endgame of the new world order will result in victory. But the cold, hard, concrete evidence shows that internationalists do have a plan; they are implementing that plan systematically; and all major governments around the world are participating in that plan. This plan involves the inevitable collapse and reformation of America into a Third World enclave, a goal that is nearly complete, as I will outline in my next article.

As the U.S. destabilizes, we are not escaping the clutches of the Federal Reserve system, only trading out one totalitarian management model for another. It is absolutely vital that the liberty movement in particular finally and fully embrace this reality. If we do not, then there will truly be no obstacle to such a plan’s success and no end to the tyrannies of the old world or the new world.

You can read more from Brandon Smith at his site Alt-Market.com. If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.

Obama pushes for gun control after Planned Parenthood shooting … After a gunman opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood on Friday, killing three people and injuring several others, President Obama urged the nation to increase controls over “the easy accessibility of weapons of war.” – CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-gun-control-planned-parenthood-shooting-colorado-springs/

Dominant Social Themes: Guns kill people.

Free-Market Analysis: Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? We think it’s the latter. It’s the reason that the British are now suffering from a rash of murderous biting.Sorry, we just made that up, and, sure, it’s nothing to joke about but it could be true. The Brits – living on an island as enlightened as Antarctica under a trillion tons of ice – have seemingly made every kind of weapon illegal. You can’t even shoot a burglar in your own home without being hauled into court with the threat of life imprisonment.

And what’s the result? The Brits are onto knives now, well … really anything pointy. Last year, The Daily Sheeple posted an article on the next wave of confiscations. The title: “Is This a Joke? British Police Push for Ban on Pointy Knives.”

You can’t laugh about it. It’s not a joke anymore. There is no longer any limit to what can be controlled and regulated. Most people would have laughed hysterically if you told them there would be calls for knife control someday. And not just butterfly knives and switchblades, but apparently, anything that is “pointy”.

The British are thorough as well as often compulsively authoritarian. We learn from the article that, “Researchers consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.”

Point taken. Even professional chefs won’t miss their knives since a short-bladed tool can do the job as well. Presumably it didn’t occur to the surveyed chefs that once the long-bladed knives have been confiscated, short-bladed ones will be the next to go. Presumably, then, if they want to cut something up they can make snipping motions with their thumbs and index fingers.

The article excerpted above from CBS never tells us what President Barack Obama intends to do about gun violence but it does mention Obama’s frustration several times. It’s not good to make Obama frustrated. The last time it happened, it seems he came up with Obamacare. Here’s some more from the article:

“This is not normal,” the president said in a statement Saturday. “We can’t let it become normal.” “If we truly care about this – if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience – then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them,” Mr. Obama added. “Enough is enough.”

We’ll wait to see what Obama has in mind but we are not hopeful. He is an enormously energetic and destructive man and the Republicans in Congress don’t seem to be capable of resisting him.We would recommend, in any case, (he won’t) that Obama take a look at a just-published article on gun control by Eric Englund over at LewRockwell.com. Entitled, “Politically Correct Thinking about Guns,” it is re-published on http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com today.

Fortunately, this simple-minded view of guns is unsupportable as it implies every human being is deranged enough to commit murder by merely having access to a gun. Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, fortuitously, have produced a study dispelling the anti-gun drivel spewed by progressives; and, no surprise here, guns do not mysteriously impel individuals to commit murder and suicide.

Although the truth does not matter to progressives, it is critical to speak truth to the anti-gun, power-seeking psychopaths in the progressive movement. Many people will listen and our liberty depends upon doing so.While Englund’s essay is putatively about gun control, it has just as much to say about the warped logic of “progressives” who believe the state power of confiscatory force is a “magic bullet” that will do away with shooting and shooters.

England is probably correct when he writes, “The attractiveness of progressivism is that it relieves people from having to think for themselves while making them believe they are intellectuals.”Englund also points out that progressivism is “not grounded in philosophy, logic, political science or economic theory. Rather, it springs from emotion or magical thinking.” And he makes the terrific point that progressivism is actually fear-based, which is why it’s so hard to counter. The memes of political correctness have been carefully designed to appeal to fearful people.

He tells us about some of the conclusions reached by Kates and Mauser in their study (published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, spring of 2007), especially when it comes to murderers who are not ordinary “law-abiding citizens.” Instead, “almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors.”In other words, these are violent people for one reason or another and they will be violent with or without guns. Confiscating guns will not make them any less violent, which is one reason why gun control in Britain has devolved into pointy knife control.

The impulse is always to confiscate one last weapon, but the confiscation has nothing to do with the reality of violence and those perpetrating it.

Englund concludes that “Kates and Mauser have armed us with the truth about privately-owned firearms. In the battle of ideas, I’m optimistic the truth will win out. Millions of gun owners know this.”We wish we could be as optimistic as Englund but, in our view, the political economy currently (and historically) only moves in one direction, forward. The US – the West, really – is suffering from a severe bout of authoritarianism. And the more authoritarianism advances, the more fearful people become. It’s very hard to break that cycle with “logic.”

Conclusion:

For this reason, as always, we suggest that people concentrate on making a difference for themselves and their loved ones. Arm yourself with knowledge regarding your own self-sufficiency before you tackle the rest of the world. We’re not suggesting that you be selfish, merely realistic. Perhaps we can continue to help you in that regard.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

As my readers surely expect, I have considerably different suggestion for every single America that knows what our de-funk Constitution promised us. And with no apology here it is. First; do not pay any attention to what the fear mongers are trying to do, which is to make you feel guilty and afraid of guns. They only do this because they are the most perfect example of a coward; who is too fearful to protect their own life and their family. Consider them as having been born with a defective mind and absolutely no courage. They are the pukes of society! Almost all animals will die protecting their own offspring. What possible good could they offer society? Ignore them, other than showing them your contempt. Given the power to do so, I would deport them all too Middle Eastern countries. In today’s article on http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com By Eric Englund everything about progressives and their gun free world brain fart is clearly explained. One can only wonder how these idiots manage to survive.

Written By: Patrick Wood TN Note: This article was originally written by Patrick Wood on March 18, 2009, but it is as pertinent today as it was then. The movement toward polarization of law enforcement has continued unabated and unchecked.

Patriots, Christians and concerned citizens are increasingly in the cross hairs of the U.S. intelligence community, and battle lines are being quietly drawn that could soon pit our own law enforcement and military forces against us.

A February 20 report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” was issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) that paints mainstream patriotic Americans as dangerous threats to law enforcement and to the country. Operating under the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the MIAC is listed as a Fusion Center that was established in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.

Because authenticity of the report was questioned by some, this writer contacted Missouri state Representative Jim Guest (R-King City) who had personally verified that the report had indeed been issued. Rep. Guest is chairman of the Personal Privacy Committee and is a prominent leader in the national blowback against the Real ID Act of 2005 that requires states to issue uniform driver’s licenses containing personal biometric data. (See Guest warns against Big Brother, Real ID)

Rep. Guest stated that he was “shocked and outraged” at the report, which clearly paints him and many other elected state leaders, as a potential threats to law enforcement.

Instead of focusing on actual criminal incidents of “home-grown” terrorism, the MAIC report instead lists issues that it believes are common to the threats it perceives. Thus, Americans involved with the following issues are highly suspect:

“Ammunition Accountability Act” requiring each bullet to to be serialized and registered to the purchaser.
“Anticipation of the economic collapse of the US Government” Prominent scholars and economists are openly debating the bankruptcy and insolvency of the United States government.

“Possible Constitutional Convention (Con Con)” 32 states have called for a Constitutional Convention to force Congress and the Executive Branch into a balanced budget, but many are concerned that if called, Con Con would be taken over by hostile interests who would introduce Amendments that are harmful to national sovereignty.

“North American Union” MIAC states that “Conspiracy theorists claim that this union would link Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The NAU would unify its monetary system and trade the dollar for the AMERO. Associated with this theory is concern over a NAFTA Superhighway, which would fast track trade between the three nations. There is additional concern that the NAU would open up the border causing security risks and free movement for immigrants.”

“Universal Service Program” “Statements made by President Elect Obama and his chief of staff have led extremists to fear the creation of a Civilian Defense Force. This theory requires all citizens between the age of 18 and 25 to be forced to attend three months of mandatory training.” (This is exactly what Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have repeatedly stated on national TV, and thus is hardly a theory.)

“Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)” This includes human implantation, but the larger concern is universal id cards and personal property identification that can be read electronically without the bearer’s knowledge.

Citizens who are concerned about the above issues are then lumped into radical ideologies such as Christian Identity, White Nationalists (e.g., neo-Nazi, Skinheads, etc.) and anti-Semites. Tax Resisters and Anti-Immigration advocates are thrown into the same category.

The MIAC report then sternly warns law enforcement personnel,
“You are the Enemy: The militia subscribes to an antigovernment and NWO mind set, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps.” [Bold emphasis appears in original]

On the last page of the MIAC report, a section listing Political Paraphernalia (flags and symbols) states,
“Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

Militia members commonly display picture, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforcement, and the ‘New World Order’ in a derogatory manor (sic). Additionally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, mate¬rial may be displayed by militia members.”
What was the ostensible genesis of all these “threats” to law enforcement? The report explains it this way…

“Academics contend that female and minority empowerment in the 1970s and 1960s caused a blow to white male’s sense of empowerment. This, combined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immigration, and unemployment, spawned a paramilitary culture. This caught on in the 1980’s with injects such as Tom Clancy novels, Solder of Fortune Magazine, and movies such as Rambo that glorified combat. This culture glorified white males and portrayed them as morally upright heroes who were mentally and physically tough.

“It was during this time frame that many individuals and organizations began to concoct conspiracy theories to explain their misfortunes. These theories varied but almost always involved a globalist dictatorship the“New World Order (NWO), which conspired to exploit the working class citizens.”
In other words, these “ridiculous NWO theories” were created by psychological deviants who were trying to justify their own self-induced misfortunes.
Fear ye, all troopers

For unsuspecting law enforcement personnel, this MIAC training document polarizes unsuspecting officers to fear peaceful, law-abiding citizens and greatly increases the risk of armed confrontation. For instance, a routine traffic stop would be escalated if the officer observes a Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin bumper sticker on the rear bumper of the car. The mere possession of printed material such as the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights would be viewed as subversive, even though most officers are required to take an oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States” as a condition of their employment.

Additionally, troopers are indoctrinated that all such topics are pure fantasy and without any factual basis. Even if they had their own concerns, they would be ridiculed into accepting the position that all criticism of the New World Order is dangerous to their well being.

The Columbia Daily Tribune (Columbia, Missouri) reports this concern from local resident Tim Neal, who apparently fits the MIAC’s “Modern Militia” profile:
If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner, and this guys walking up to my vehicle with a gun. [see ‘Fusion Center’ draws fire over assertions]
MIAC is a Fusion Center

As mentioned above, the Missouri Information Analysis Center is one of a network of over 50 Fusion Centers around the country.
According to the National Criminal Intelligence Resource Center (NCIRC), a Fusion Center is “a collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.”

As of 2006, the NCIRC listed 50 Fusion Centers in various states.
Most importantly, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are the driving forces behind Fusion Centers, having published “Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and Intelligence in a New World.” This report headlines “Fusion” as “Turning Information and Intelligence Into Actionable Knowledge.”

Fusion Centers are one of five areas of information sharing under the Information Sharing Environment (ISE) that was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
ISE membership includes the Department of Commerce, CIA, Department of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, Department of Energy, FBI, Health and Human Services, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Homeland Security, National Counter-Terrorism Center, Department of Interior, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury.

According to one white paper (on the ISE web site) entitled The Intelligence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement, “The most important output of the intelligence Fusion Center is actionable intelligence. This means that the intelligence produced by the center will drive operational responses and strategic awareness of threats.” Accordingly,

“The heart of good intelligence analysis is to have a diverse array of valid and reliable raw information for analysis. The more robust the raw information, the more accurate the analytic output (i.e., intelligence) will be.”

The above mentioned MIAC report, issued by an official Fusion Center, is apparently part of this “diverse array of valid and reliable raw information.”
However, ISE’s understanding of intelligence is foolish. Any intelligence analyst knows that so-called raw information is treated as garbage until verified from multiple sources to validate accuracy, completeness and freedom from bias. Secondly, analytic output depends upon trained and experienced human reasoning and judgment, not on the “robustness” of the raw information itself.

Where do Fusion Centers get inputs?

According to their own documents, Fusion Cen¬ters are “seeded” with ideas for analysis by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Although this is problematic in itself, attention is better directed to the left-wing nonprofit organization, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Upon careful word and theme comparison between the MIAC report and SPLC literature, it is apparent that there is a significant link between the two. Either MIAC received training or training material from SPLC or some of its personnel had some previous exposure to it.

The SPLC aggressively offers training to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. According to the SPLC web site, “We focus on the history, background, leaders and activities of far-right extremists in the U.S.” and states that it “is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.”

Hate crimes are essentially acts of vilification of a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, such as racial, religious, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, etc. While hate crimes are wrong under any circumstance, the SPLC sees no conflict in profiling conservative whites, Christians, Constitutionalists, and patriots as being associated with, if not responsible for, hate crimes in America. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

For instance, consider the SPLC statement, “…a basic fact about all three movements: Patriots, white supremacists and anti-abortion militants are all fueled by interpretations of religion.”
Aside from the fact that this sweeping generalization is plainly not true, it is mud-slinging at its best: Patriots are lumped in with white supremacists, anti-abortionists are militants, and all are driven by an obviously irrational and fanatical application of religion.

In another SPLC article about a tragic killing in South Carolina, entitled “The Abbeville Horror”, the writer goes well beyond just the facts of the story and is careful to sprinkle in words and phrases such as:
Patriots, tax protestors, sovereign citizens, antigovernment extremists, New World Order paranoia, Disarming U.S. Citizens, hard-line Christian Right, constitutional rights, antigovernment “Patriot” literature, anti-Semitic conspiracy, “Live Free or Die,” Ruby Ridge and Waco, Second Amendment, extremist organizing, “closet extremists,” paranoid beliefs, “Give me liberty or give me death.” [quotes appear in original text]

These are the same kinds of words and themes that are seen in The Modern Militia Movement article, where distinctions between good and bad people are blurred and confused: All are guilty by association, if nothing else.

Should a private organization like SPLC be allowed to provide official training to public-entrusted law enforcement agencies? Most would say, “No.” Even if the training was free, the agency should reject influence from the public sector, and even more so if it presents biased and one-sided information that is claimed to be factual.

Conclusion

It is critical to understand that the legitimate law enforcement agencies of cities, counties and states are not adversaries of the people. They are greatly needed for protection against crime and for keeping order in our communities.

They are, however, being methodically seeded with very wrong headed and dangerous infomation, the specific intent of which is to polarize law enforcement against peaceful citizens who simply care about the downfall of their country.

This writer interviewed Chuck Baldwin and asked about how he felt when he first saw his good name associated with those who would threaten bodily harm to law enforcement agencies. “Personally, I was stunned,” he said, “but my family has taken this very personally as well. This is more than disturbing.”
When asked about the possible affect of the report on the Constitution Party, of which he was the 2008 presidential candidate, he replied, “I think it will galvanize people and help them to understand the nature of the battle we are in. Freedom must be defended.”

In fact, the MIAC report has created a firestorm all over America. Tens of thousands of protests are being called, written, emailed and faxed to authorities and legislators in Missouri. It would not be surprising to see the report rescinded and an apology given.

Even so, behind the scene groups like the SPLC will continue unabated and undeterred in their effort to misinform and disrupt healthy community relations with worthy law enforcement agencies and personnel.

The message to every jurisdiction: Don’t let it happen!

Final thought

Locate the Fusion Center in your state and keep a close eye on the information they are releasing. Stay close to as many law enforcement personnel as you can, asking them to keep their eyes open for reports similar to the Missouri report. Petition your state legislators to ban law enforcement training by private organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

The original publication date of this article (03 18 09) should tell some of you folks just how little attention you have been paying to the destruction of our freedom. Everything Patrick wrote about back then is common knowledge today, and still the American complacency is present. What will it take to wake you folks up to reality?

On Nov. 13, the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced it was charging 10 individual bankers, working for two separate banks, Deutsche Bank and Barclays, with fraud over their rigging of the Euribor rates. The latest announcement shines the spotlight once again on the scandals and criminal behavior that have come to define the world of global banking.To date, only a handful of the world’s largest banks have been repeatedly investigated, charged, fined or settled in relation to a succession of large financial scams, starting with mortgage fraud and the Libor scandal in 2012, the Euribor scandal and the Forex (foreign exchange) rate rigging. At the heart of these scandals, which involve the manipulation of interest rates on trillions of dollars in transactions, lie a handful of banks that collectively form a cartel in control of global financial markets – and the source of worldwide economic and financial crises.

Banks such as HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, Bank of America, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS anchor the global financial power we have come to recognize as fraud. The two, after all, are not mutually exclusive. In more explicit terms, this cartel of banks functions as a type of global financial Mafia, manipulating markets and defrauding investors, consumers and countries while demanding their pound of flesh in the form of interest payments. The banks force nations to impose austerity measures and structural reforms under the threat of cutting off funding; meanwhile they launder drug money for other cartels and organized crime syndicates.

Call them the global Mafiocracy.

In May, six major global banks were fined nearly $6 billion for manipulation of the foreign exchange market, which handles over $5 trillion in daily transactions. Four of the six banks pleaded guilty to charges of “conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros exchanged.” Those banks were Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland, while two additional banks, UBS and Bank of America, were fined but did not plead guilty to the specific charges. Forex traders at Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and other banks conspired to manipulate currency prices through chat room groups they established, where they arrogantly used names like “The Mafia” and “The Cartel.”

The FBI said the investigations and charges against the big banks revealed criminal behavior “on a massive scale.” The British bank Barclays paid the largest individual fine at around $2.3 billion. But as one trader at the bank wrote in a chat room conversation back in 2010, “If you aint cheating, you aint trying.” The total fines, while numerically large, were but a small fraction of the overall market capitalization of each bank – though the fine on Barclays amounted to some 3.4% of the bank’s market capitalization, the highest percentage by far among the group.

Despite the criminal conspiracy charges covering the years 2007 through 2013, the banks and their top officials continue to lay the blame squarely at the feet of individual traders. Axel Weber, the former president of the German Bundesbank (the central bank of Germany), who is now chairman of Switzerland’s largest bank, UBS, commented that “the conduct of a small number of employees was unacceptable and we have taken appropriate disciplinary actions.”

Looking at the larger scale of bank fines and fraud in the roughly eight years since the global financial crisis, the numbers increase substantially. In addition to a 2012 settlement for mortgage-related fraud in the U.S. housing market, which amounted to some $25 billion, several large banks paid individual fines related to mortgage and foreclosure fraud – including a $16 billion fine for Bank of America, and $13 billion for JPMorgan Chase. Added to these are fines related to the rigging of the Libor rate (the interest rate at which banks lend to each other) and the Forex rigging, as well as money laundering, violating sanctions, manipulating the price of gold, manipulating the U.S. electricity market and assisting tax evasion, among other crimes.

According to a research paper published in June, the total cost of litigation (fines, penalties, settlements, etc.) paid by 16 major global banks since 2010 has reached more than $300 billion. Bank of America paid the most, amounting to more than $66 billion, followed by JPMorgan Chase, Lloyds, Citigroup, Barclays, RBS, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, BNP Paribas, Santander, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, UBS, National Australia Bank, Standard Chartered and Société Générale.

Virtually all of these banks also appear on a list of data, compiled through 2007, revealing them to be among the most interconnected and powerful financial institutions in the world. This core group of corporations forms part of a network of 147 financial institutions that Swiss scientists refer to as the “super-entity,” which, through their various shareholdings, collectively control and own each other and roughly 40% of the world’s 43,000 largest transnational corporations.In other words, the big banks – along with large insurance companies and asset management firms – do not simply act as a cartel in terms of engaging in criminal activities, but they form a functionally interdependent network of global financial and corporate control. Further, the banks work together in various industry associations and lobbying groups where they officially represent their collective interests.

The largest European banks and financial institutions are represented by the European Financial Services Round Table (EFR), whose membership consists of the CEOs or Chairmen of roughly 25 of the top financial institutions on the continent, including Deutsche Bank, AXA, HSBC, Allianz, RBS, ING, Barclays, BNP Paribas, UBS, and Credit Suisse, among others.In the United States, the Financial Services Forum (FSF) represents the largest American along with some European banks and financial institutions. The Forum’s membership consists of less than 20 executives, including the CEOs or Chairmen of such firms as Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, UBS, HSBC, AIG, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street Corporation, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo, among others.

And on a truly global scale, there is the Institute of International Finance (IIF), the premier global association representing the financial industry, with a membership of nearly 500 different institutions from more than 70 countries around the world, including banks, insurance companies, asset management firms, sovereign wealth funds, central banks, credit ratings agencies, hedge funds and development banks.

In addition to these various groups and associations, many of the same large banks and their top executives also serve as members, leaders or participants in much more secretive groups and forums – for example, the International Monetary Conference (IMC), a yearly meeting of hundreds of the world’s top bankers hosted by the American Bankers Association, which invites selected politicians, central bankers and finance ministers to attend their off-the-record discussions. In addition, there is the Institut International d’Etudes Bancaires (International Institute of Banking Studies), or IIEB, which brings together the top officials from dozens of Europe’s major financial institutions for discussions with central bankers, presidents and prime ministers in “closed sessions” with virtually no coverage in the media.

These financial institutions are major owners of government debt, which gives them even greater leverage over the policies and priorities of governments. Exercising this power, they typically demand the same thing: austerity measures and “structural reforms” designed to advance a neoliberal market economy that ultimately benefits those same banks and corporations. The banks in turn create the very crises that require governments to bail them out, racking up large debts that banks turn into further crises, pressuring economic reforms in return for further loans. The cycle of crisis and control continues, and all the while, the big banks and financial institutions engage in criminal conspiracies, fraud, manipulation and money-laundering on a massive scale, including acting as the financial services arm of the world’s largest drug cartels and terrorists organizations.

Welcome to the world governed by the global financial Mafiocracy – because if you’re not concerned, you’re not paying attention.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS!

Now do you have some idea of why I have been calling for their heads? And I mean that literally! These scumbags must be brought to justice before they blow up the entire financial world and the lives of BILLIONS of people. The damage they have already caused is un-calculable. Murder, rape, incest, theft, is their daily activity. They are the scum of the earth. They should be subjected to the most pain-full death ever invented.

Comments Off on Bank Crimes Pay Under the Thumb of the Global Financial Mafiocracy

By Matthew Spina / News Staff ReporterA Louisiana police chief ushers a drunken woman to his office and forces her into sex.A Utah officer takes advantage of a suicidal woman before escorting her into a hospital.A Buffalo cop insists a vulnerable mother give in to him whenever he pounds on her door.In the past decade, a law enforcement official was caught in a case of sexual abuse or misconduct at least every five days. Nearly all were men. Nearly all victims were women, and a surprising number were adolescents.

Details of more than 700 credible cases from the past 10 years are now available, county by county and state by state, from The Buffalo News.No federal agency tracks job-related sexual misconduct by police officers. So The Buffalo News combed through news reports and court records to compile a database. More than 700 credible cases from the past 10 years are now detailed, county by county and state by state.

The violators pulled over drivers to fish for dates, had sex on duty with willing or reluctant partners, extorted favors by threatening arrest and committed rapes.

In more than 70 percent of the cases, officers wielded their authority over motorists, crime victims, informants, students and young people in job-shadowing programs. Then there were covert acts. One officer on patrol would hunt for WiFi signals and use them to collect child pornography. Another secretly photographed girls’ underwear.

The numbers are almost certainly higher. Sex offenses go widely unreported even when cops are not suspects. Victims may be even less likely to report offenses when they fear it will be their word versus an officer’s. Police often prey on accursers with weak credibility, such as prostitutes, addicts or parolees.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said former police officer Timothy M. Maher, now a criminal justice professor in St. Louis, whose research shows that police sexual misconduct is under-reported. Maher says most officers do not commit felony sex crimes. But he believes many offenses never come to light or are swept under the rug.

Detailed in The News data are some 160 offenses against young people. An Alabama officer raped a 13-year-old girl attending the school where he served as a crossing guard. A cop in North Carolina told a 14-year-old crime victim that having sex with him would prove she was telling the truth. A school resource officer in Arkansas climbed into a student’s bedroom window. He was 48. She was 16.Sex-related misconduct generates more citizen complaints than any factor except excessive force, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank tracking police wrongdoing, found in a 2010 study.

A Niagara Falls patrolman completed a pat-down then let his hands roam over a woman’s breasts, buttocks and between her legs. A California officer sent to quiet a loud party stripped down and splashed into a pool of women. A Texas officer told a motorist she could drive off without a ticket if she let him lick her feet or take her underwear.

Norm Stamper hit the streets as a San Diego patrolman in 1966 and ended his career 34 years later as police chief in Seattle. During those decades, Stamper said he saw racism, sexism and misogyny in the ranks. He saw cops come to believe that no one may defy them. In 2005, he published a book that included a chapter called “sexual predators in uniform.”

“You won’t find a major law enforcement agency that has been around for more than five minutes that has not had a chapter in its history of sexual abuse by a police officer on duty,” Stamper said.“We’ve got too many rapists in uniform.”

A picture emerges

The News data includes only cases in which an officer’s bad acts were linked to police work. That doesn’t mean all were on duty. Jeffrey Pelo, a sergeant in Bloomington, Ill., stalked and raped women in his private time but used police resources to find his victims, so the data includes his case. Minneapolis Officer Bradley Schnickel used no police resources as he sought adolescent girls for sex. The data omits his name, and the names of hundreds more officers convicted of serious sex crimes unconnected to their jobs.

All but five of the officers named in the data are men, though women make up 13 percent of sworn officers nationwide. Among the five women: A Texas probation officer struck up a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy she supervised, and went to prison; and a Georgia sheriff’s deputy who failed to provide backup to a colleague because she was off having sex. She resigned.

Most of the offenders had enough time on the job to learn to evade varying levels of supervision. The officers averaged 38 years of age, with nine years of service to their departments, when those factors could be determined.Just 6 percent were department rookies who started to strike soon after hitting the streets. A 25-year-old in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., for example, pressured a half-dozen women for sex during traffic stops. He went to prison. So did a rookie in Houston, Texas, who took his victims to a remote area and forced them to strip.

Road cops are most likely to offend. About 72 percent were patrol deputies, troopers, officers, constables. Others were detectives, officers with rank, or federal agents, federal security workers, or parole or probation officers.About 3 percent held high-level posts: chiefs, deputy chiefs and sheriffs, such as the sheriff in Custer County, Okla., who forced female drug defendants into sex with him in exchange for better treatment. Some 28 percent were suspected of engaging with more than one person.

Many of those named faced only departmental charges and were fired or resigned. Some have been indicted and their cases are still playing out. But most officers in the data, 63 percent, were convicted of a crime after being accused of various acts of abuse, assault or misconduct.A case in Buffalo years ago looks typical.

A knock on the door

At around 9 on a November night in 2004, a single mother gassed up her Honda as she headed out to return a book to a fellow University at Buffalo student. Joyce Pecky was 42, a slender 5 feet, 5 inches tall, with reddish brown hair falling to her shoulders. She was determined to write a new chapter in her life, and it would go like this: Bid farewell to a drug habit, earn a master’s degree in nutrition and provide solid support to the 6-year-old daughter riding in the back seat.

Joyce Pecky says she was preyed upon by former Buffalo Police Officer

Greg O’Shei, who was convicted in 2006 in connection with the demands he placed on Pecky for sexual favors. Photo by Robert Kirkham / Buffalo News

The Buffalo News does not identify the victims of sex-related crimes, but Pecky says the problem of police sexual misconduct has been in the shadows for too long. She wants to speak publicly about her ordeal. Her account:Standing at the pump in jeans and a heavy sweatshirt, Pecky was unaware of a police car nearby. But soon after she returned the nozzle and angled toward Bailey Avenue, a squad car threw streaks of light across the road, and Pecky slowed to a stop on a dark East Side street.

Pecky handed over her license, and the officer left her for a few minutes. Then he reappeared with an odd request, she said. Would she walk with him to the rear of her car?

Once there, the cop moaned things in her ear, crude things, she said. He implied that she was out searching for drugs and questioned whether she was a good mother for having her little girl out so late, Pecky recalled.Pecky said she was stunned — and bending backward over the trunk of her car to get some space.

Can I please leave? Pecky asked again and again, she said. Finally, Officer Greg O’Shei told her she could drive home. He would not arrest her.

O’Shei, as he described himself for a deposition years later, was a large man, about 6 feet 3 and 215 pounds. When he stopped Pecky he was 41, with a family at home. He first donned a Buffalo police badge nine years before the traffic stop, but a brain injury suffered in an on-duty crash had idled him for years and played games with his memory and temperament. If he acted oddly at times, the Buffalo Police Department wasn’t one in which an officer questioned another about such things, he said.

O’Shei would also say he had seen Pecky in the past trying to score drugs and wanted to know who was selling them. She insists she had never seen him before. Regardless, Pecky realized the officer never called in her information from the traffic stop. If he had, he would have learned she was driving with a suspended license.

Pecky returned to her flat on Mineral Springs Road, put her daughter to bed, then went to bed herself.

At 2 a.m., someone pounded on the door.“I just wanted to make sure you are OK,” O’Shei explained, according to Pecky.

O’Shei was still on duty but miles outside his Ferry-Fillmore district. Pecky cracked opened the door, and seconds later he was roaming the apartment. He complained it was messy, questioned her mothering skills and mentioned the child could be taken away with one arrest, Pecky said.

With the girl waking up, Pecky persuaded O’Shei to leave. But he came back the next day, when he was off duty and the girl was at school, and got the sexual favor he wanted from Joyce Pecky.

O’Shei came by again and again for months while on duty, Pecky said. Sometimes she and her daughter would hide, pretending no one was home as he banged on the door and the windows and shined his flashlight inside. But when they hid, she said, O’Shei returned the very next night.

Looking the other way

One author called sexual abuse by law enforcement authorities “the police violence we aren’t talking about.”When people die at the hands of police, reports are filed and the public responds. Not so with sex acts.

Some researchers say the problem is more widespread than many administrators realize.

Just two years before Officer O’Shei first banged on Joyce Pecky’s door, Criminal Justice Professor Samuel Walker of the University of Nebraska at Omaha used the term “driving while female” after seeing that cases of police sexual abuse tend to begin with traffic stops. Among his examples: A Suffolk County officer on New Year’s Day 2001 forced a woman to strip and walk home wearing only her underpants. A California Highway Patrol trooper in 1986 strangled a 20-year-old college student, Cara Knott, and threw her body off a bridge.

Walker’s report, written with Dawn Irlbeck, said sex offenses can multiply when departments allow sexist cultures, tolerate wrongdoing, ignore citizen complaints and fail to supervise. They suggested departments collect data on the types of drivers their officers pull over — do they tend to be young women? — and hire more women because female officers generate few sexual misconduct complaints.

Timothy Maher began as a police officer in 1985. “When I went through the academy 30 years ago, it was never brought up,” he said. “Yet working the road … I was seeing all kinds of at least minor stuff. But it was enough to get some guys fired if they had been caught.”As a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis, Maher presented male police chiefs in the St. Louis metropolitan area with a questionnaire asking about the prevalence of sexual misconduct. Maher compiled the answers and learned that the chiefs, on average, suspected nearly one in five officers were committing at least low-level acts that would nonetheless violate department rules, like pulling over women drivers to fish for dates.

Maher surveyed road cops in and around St. Louis. On average, they suspected it was about one in every three officers violating the rules. Then he surveyed just female officers around St. Louis. On average, they suspected that even more cops – better than two out of every five – were probably committing at least noncriminal offenses.Maher says too many police officers fail to report bad conduct they know about.

“It’s that tolerance level,” he said. “Even when some of them hear about it or know about it, they tolerate it and don’t report on it.”

Young victims

A school resource officer in Atlanta molested a 12-year-old developmentally disabled girl as he drove her around town after school one day. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

A New Mexico officer who investigated cases of child abuse and sex crimes sexually assaulted a high school intern trying to learn about police work. He was sentenced to nine years in prison.

An officer in Cleveland, Ohio, videotaped himself having sex, in uniform, with a 15-year-old he met while working security at a recreation center. He was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison.

More than 160 people — 23 percent of those in the data — are included because authorities alleged they trafficked in child pornography or engaged inappropriately with young people under the age of 18. They were students, young motorists, runaways, teen prostitutes.

About 5 percent of the offenders – 34 cops – had been assigned to work with young people, typically as school resource officers, DARE officers or leaders in their department’s Explorer programs, which acquaint young people with law enforcement careers.

Some were caught grooming young people for physical relationships that never began.A Kentucky officer sent suggestive texts to a student and was fired. A school resource officer in North Carolina sent suggestive pictures and was stripped of his law-enforcement certification and placed on probation. A police chief, also in North Carolina, engaged in sexually graphic computer chats, sometimes from his office, with people he thought were underage females.

In reality, they were criminal investigators. He was sent to a federal prison for more than 12 years.

The power imbalance

In Buffalo, Joyce Pecky agonized about her situation with Officer O’Shei. He would park his patrol car outside her home and bang at her door with his expectations.If she reported him, would the department take her seriously?She had a record.If O’Shei found out, would it only get worse for her?

A woman in Jacksonville, Texas, accused an officer of rape. When he later spotted her on the street, he wrapped a belt around her neck and dragged her toward his van. She escaped, and he was sentenced to 12 years in prison.In many cases in The News’ database, officers preyed on women with weak credibility: prostitutes, ex-convicts, women named in arrest warrants, drug informants, drug abusers, women on probation or parole.

Who would believe their word over a police officer’s?But to prove her claim, a parolee in Broward County, Fla., set up a hidden camera to record her parole officer forcing her into sex in her home under the threat of imprisonment. The parole officer was fired and now faces charges.

When confronting overwhelming evidence against them, accused officers often argue that the sex was consensual – forbidden by department rules, but not sexual assault and certainly not rape.In his December 2010 deposition, Officer O’Shei said he believed the sex with Pecky and others was consensual.

O’Shei admitted he knocked on windows and peered into Pecky’s apartment with his flashlight. He agreed he said things that could be taken as threats. He admitted she told him she wasn’t interested.Yes, he mentioned to her what could happen if a Child Protective Services worker ever showed up. Yes, his gun remained on him at all times. And yes, Pecky was vulnerable to his police powers.

But O’Shei did not think Pecky or any of the other women would report him – “because I didn’t feel we were involved in a situation where one felt compelled to do something,” he explained.“As you look back now you realize otherwise?” a lawyer asked.“Yes,” he said.

Day in court

The chances for criminal convictions and stiff sentences depend on the strength of the case, a victim’s willingness to testify, the skill of prosecutors, a jury’s attitudes toward police and the accuser.An officer in Indianapolis threatened to arrest a 19-year-old woman on a warrant if she did not have sex with him. He was charged with seven felonies, including rape, but was allowed to plead guilty to sexual misconduct and official misconduct. Instead of jail time, he received two years of home confinement, a year of probation and an order to register as a sex offender while on probation.

A cop in Edgewater, Fla., had a woman perform a sex act on him or be arrested for marijuana possession. He was sentenced to a year of probation but had to surrender his certification as a law enforcement officer.In Flagstaff, Ariz., a state officer out for a night of drinking and entertainment flashed his badge to get into a music venue for free and later threatened to have the bouncers who evicted him arrested. He had walked up to a friend of a friend and rubbed his hand up her skirt and across her genitals. Convicted of sexual abuse, the officer was placed on probation for two years and fired.

With a few fellow cops in court to support their colleague, the judge lectured the victim: “If you hadn’t been there that night, none of this would have happened to you,” Judge Jacqueline Hatch said, according to the Arizona Daily Sun. The judge later apologized.Some officers go to prison for decades.

In New Orleans, an officer who took a woman in his custody to a warehouse and sexually assaulted her was given 45 years.An officer in Anchorage, Alaska, received 87 years for sexually assaulting several women.

A deputy in Cobb County, Ga., grew angry at a waitress as he drank in a bar. He accused the woman, who spoke little English, of stealing his cell phone. He flashed his badge, took her to the apartment complex where they both lived and raped her and beat her at gunpoint. A judge sentenced him to 25 years to life.

Victims can sue police officers or other law enforcement officials accused of such wrongdoing. They can go after the officers themselves or their supervisors who fail to address known wrongdoing or are grossly negligent in their supervision.

To reach the deeper pockets of government, plaintiffs must link the municipality to the crime by some fact other than the officer’s mere employment. Was the misconduct part of a policy or pattern? Was it so consistent and widespread that officials should have known about it? Did a failure to monitor, supervise or train amount to deliberate indifference to the rights of victims? Was the supervisor grossly negligent?

Houston Officer Abraham Joseph used his patrol car to pull over female motorists and would rape them. But the victims lost their civil rights claims against the city after a judge ruled Houston’s practices for hiring, training and supervising officers were not so poor that they were unconstitutional.Civil outcomes are all over the board. The City of San Diego paid $1.3 million to settle a lawsuit filed by two women who had been groped by a San Diego officer.In their lawsuits against the City of Buffalo, Joyce Pecky and two other plaintiffs have so far collected nothing.

‘Grave abuse’

Early this year, dozens of organizations advocating for women of color told the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing that police sexual misconduct is “by no means an isolated phenomenon” and requires “a policy response by law enforcement agencies.”

The wheels for a policy response were already in motion. Four years earlier, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, in Alexandria, Va., created a “working group on sexual offenses by police officers.” Named to the group were professors Walker and Maher.The international association, widely respected by police administrators, stated in 2011 that sexual misconduct by police represents a “grave abuse of authority” and warrants “the full attention of law-enforcement leadership.” The IACP presented a guide to help administrators recognize and deal with cases and prevent new episodes.

No one at the organization can say how many of the nation’s 18,000 police agencies follow the guidelines. But the volume of incidents coming to light has not abated. In 2014, newspapers and television stations around the country reported 105 new and credible cases of job-related sexual misconduct by police.

It was the highest annual total in the 10 years’ of data, and an average of two cases every week.

He is ‘the cops’

Joyce Pecky never called the police about Officer O’Shei. But Susan Phister did.

Like Pecky, Phister wanted to talk publicly about her experience. Ten years ago, Phister’s life was a dangerous mix of drug abuse and sex for money, she said, and O’Shei would show up expecting her to give in to avoid arrest.Phister would agree with O’Shei when he says he never worried about being caught. She recalled looking out the window after one encounter. As O’Shei slept, his squad car remained as he left it — the emergency lights swirling, the driver’s door open and the dome light shining. “It was lit up like a firecracker,” Phister said in an interview.

O’Shei became enraged, she said, if she ever tried to say no or could not be found. She was afraid of him and went to the police department when she couldn’t take it anymore. Phister produced text messages from O’Shei to back up her story.

O’Shei in 2006 admitted using his police powers to coerce sexual favors. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors — linked to his conduct with Pecky and Phister. Neither was a sex charge. O’Shei was sentenced to probation, not jail. While he had already resigned, the conviction ensured he would not be a police officer in New York.

Pecky today spends hours with her battered laptop computer, searching for cases of police sexual misconduct from around the country. She studies policy statements and research on the problem of predators in uniform. She read the reports by Samuel Walker in Omaha and Timothy Maher in St. Louis and read former Seattle Chief Norm Stamper’s chapter on the subject.

She plans to write a book of her own.She is angry. Why don’t police departments accept responsibility for their offenders when facing lawsuits? she wonders. Why does the FBI take on so few “color of law” violations involving sexual abuse? Federal authorities were active in less than 10 percent of the cases in The News’ data.Pecky never got her master’s degree. During the months that O’Shei hounded her she started using drugs again. No one took her daughter away.

Now 16, the girl is studious, pleasant and poised. She still remembers a night when she was about 7.As the officer pounded on the door and peered inside, the girl and her mother crouched near the floor to hide.

“I remember telling my mother ‘I’m scared.’ ”She said she suggested to her mother that they “call the cops” then immediately thought better of it.He is “the cops,” she realized.“It was actually terrifying,” she said.

Luis Edward HermosilloU.S. Border Patrol Agent Luis Hermosillo in June 2009 allowed a woman, with her two children in the car, to pass into the country through his checkpoint near Mecca, Calif. Then he hurried to his vehicle and pulled her over, on the pretext that he had forgotten to search her luggage.Hermosillo ordered her out of her car and, in the course of a pat down, penetrated her with his fingers, according to her civil lawsuit. Then he pulled her into his car, started kissing her buttocks over her skirt and penetrated her again with his fingers, her court complaint said. In time, she was allowed to drive off,It was easy for her to identify the agent who had assaulted her. Hermosillo had given her his phone number, in case she would like to go out on a date, according to a statement from the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security. Hermosillo in 2012 pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault and kidnapping and was sentenced to eight years in a California prison.— Matthew Spina

Hamilton RileyState police in Arkansas were waiting for him.They were told by the parents of a 16-year-old girl that something was wrong with the attention that Neil Hamilton Riley, a 48-year-old school resource officer, was lavishing on their daughter. So the state investigators had some advance notice and were in the family’s home when Riley clambered into the girl’s bedroom window around 1 on a February morning in 2010.Later that day, Riley resigned from the police department in Searcy, Ark., which had employed him for almost eight years. He had met the girl through his work at Ahlf Junior High, a prosecutor on the case told the Associated Press.Some parents and students interviewed by a local television station reacted with disgust at Riley’s conduct. One person told the station that Riley and his wife had split about five months earlier.As incredible as the circumstances are, The News found that it was hardly a unique event. Over a 10-year span, more than 30 officers assigned to work with young people as school resource officers, DARE officers or as leaders of Explorer programs were accused of crossing the line.Riley’s lawyer had sought probation for his client. But Riley said little as a judge in 2011 ordered him to spend 15 years in prison.— Matthew Spina

Ryan G. WarmeThis is the sexual misconduct that Ryan Warme admitted: In July 2007 he encountered a woman parked in a high-crime area of Niagara Falls. He ordered her out of the car for a pat down. “Instead of stopping once the ‘pat down’ was finished,” prosecutors wrote, Warme touched the woman’s “breasts, buttocks and genital area” without her consent. As a result, Warme deprived the woman of her civil rights.A federal grand jury in 2008 had accused the officer of much more: rape and sodomy while on duty and receiving sexual favors from a prostitute while on duty. In one case, according to court records, Warme showed up unannounced at the apartment of a female acquaintance, stripped off his police gear and forced himself on her. When she protested he told her, “Shut up, you know you want this,” according to an FBI affidavit.Meanwhile, Warme was suspected of selling and using cocaine, and prosecutors wanted a conviction on that conduct as well. As part of his plea agreement, Warme admitted to drug-related wrongdoing and a charge related to his possession of a firearm.“I have shamed my family and humiliated myself,” Warme wrote in a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Arcara before he was sentenced in 2010 to almost 14 years in prison. “There are no excuses. I crossed the line and used drugs. I knew better.When Warme stood before him in an orange jumpsuit, Arcara wondered what had gone wrong with him. He’d been a talented athlete from a solid family.“It’s my fault,” Warme said, “and now I have to pay for it.”— Matthew Spina

Earl TheriotEarl Theriot was the police chief in Sorrento, La. – population 1,500 – when he received a call in November 2013 about an unresponsive woman in a gas station’s parking lot.Theriot drove her back to his office and, taking advantage of her drunken state, had her perform sex acts. When FBI agents investigated her complaint weeks later, Theriot told them he only drove the woman straight home, he did not know she had been in his office, that he was never alone with her there, and they had no sexual contact.Theriot admitted to the lies and the sexual misconduct in federal court. But he never went to jail. His age, 66, his health problems and his willingness to immediately resign worked in his favor when sentenced.The judge gave him a lecture. “You believed yourself to be above the law,” he told Theriot, according to television station WAFB. But Theriot was sentenced to just two years’ probation and fined $2,500.The News was unable to contact Theriot. But the former police chief told a local TV station that he had been sufficiently punished because the matter “cost me my law enforcement career and brought embarrassment to my family and the town of Sorrento.”— Matthew Spina

Nelson TuatagaloaNelson Tuatagaloa and another officer in West Jordan, Utah, responded in September 2008 to a call about a woman sitting in her car and contemplating suicide over family and personal problems. The woman had been drinking and had a gun, according to the Deseret News.In time, Tuatagaloa offered to drive the woman to the Jordan Valley Hospital and placed her, handcuffed, in the front seat of his squad car. But he later removed the cuffs, drove her to a dark part of the hospital parking lot and engaged with her in sex acts without her consent.Tuatagaloa later resigned from the department and, with his trial about to begin, pleaded guilty in February 2010 to two felony counts of custodial sexual relations.He was sentenced to a year in jail and three years of probation, and his police officer certification was revoked.

WHAT REAL PATRIOT’S DO

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." -Thomas Paine

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out...without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.” FL. Hamer